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

HONEST ALBERT, DISHONEST EINSTEINIANS?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 22nd 11, 08:54 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default HONEST ALBERT, DISHONEST EINSTEINIANS?

Honest Albert, dishonest "later writers" (according to John Stachel
and John Norton):

http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-B-Z-J.../dp/0817641432
Einstein from 'B' to 'Z', John Stachel
p. 179: "Are there any common features to Einstein's mentions of the
Michelson-Morley experiment? Yes: Without exception, it is cited as
evidence for the relativity principle, and is never cited as evidence
for the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Dishonest Albert uses the Michelson-Morley experiment as support for
the light postulate of special relativity:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921
"The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had
an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity
of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate
system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a
velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the
fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches
of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity
of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it
hold for only one system? he asked.
He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street.
If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the
vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with
the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light
traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved
slower and the principle apparently did not hold.
Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed
that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled
with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the
above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein
asked."

Dishonest Einsteinians "almost universally" use the Michelson-Morley
experiment as support for the light postulate of special relativity:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions
David Morin, Cambridge University Press
Chapter 11: "The speed of light has the same value in any inertial
frame. (...) This is a rather bizarre statement. It doesn't hold for
everyday objects. (...) The truth of the speed-of-light postulate
cannot be demonstrated from first principles. No statement with any
physical content in physics (that is, one that isn't purely
mathematical, such as, "two apples plus two apples gives four apples")
can be proven. In the end, we must rely on experiment. And indeed, all
the consequences of the speed-of-light postulate have been verified
countless times during the past century. As discussed in the previous
section, the most well-known of the early experiments on the speed of
light was the one performed by Michelson and Morley."

http://www.lacosmo.com/relativite.html
Christian Magnan: "Le fait que la vitesse de la lumière soit
indépendante du système de coordonnées dans lequel on la mesure a eu,
on le sait, une importance décisive dans l'invention de la théorie de
la relativité. En montrant que cette vitesse de la lumière ne
dépendait pas de la direction dans laquelle elle était mesurée,
l'expérience de Michelson et Morley (l'article en décrivant le
résultat date de 1887) a remis en cause toute la physique classique.
Ces physiciens utilisèrent le vaisseau terrestre comme un repère en
mouvement. La Terre tourne en effet autour du Soleil à la vitesse
d'environ trente kilomètres par seconde. Selon la loi de composition
des vitesses façon Galilée les vitesses devaient s'ajouter de sorte
que la vitesse de la lumière, poussée en quelque sorte par la vitesse
de la Terre, aurait dû être plus grande dans le sens où notre planète
avance dans l'espace que dans le sens opposé ou dans le sens
perpendiculaire. Mais en répétant les mesures tout au long de l'année,
le long de l'orbite terrestre, Michelson et Morley ne détectèrent
aucun effet de vitesse. Il fallait construire une théorie dans
laquelle la valeur de la vitesse de la lumière s'avèrerait
indépendante et de la direction et du repère choisi pour la mesurer."

http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_page...vite-26042.php
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "Mais au cours du XIXe siècle, diverses
expériences, et notamment celle de Michelson et Morley, ont convaincu
les physiciens que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est
invariante. En particulier, la vitesse de la lumière ne s'ajoute ni ne
se retranche à celle de sa source si celle-ci est en mouvement."

http://philosophie.initiation.cours....-48902702.html
"A la fin du XIXème siècle, les travaux de deux physiciens, Michelson
et Morley, mirent en évidence le constat suivant : quelque soit le
référentiel utilisé, la vitesse de la lumière est constante, ce qui
est en totale contradiction avec la vision classique ayant cours à
leur époque."

http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/p...at/51relat.htm
Claude SAINT-BLANQUET, Maître de conférences: "Compte tenu des
résultats de l'expérience de Michelson et Morley, on doit renoncer à
la transformation de Galilée."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster
than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the
missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its
speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus
that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to
light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what
the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the
case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that
if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to
each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree
on the same apparent speed! Einstein's 1905 special theory of
relativity was in part a response to this astonishing result. What
Einstein realized was that if c did not change, then something else
had to give. That something was the idea of universal and unchanging
space and time. This is deeply, maddeningly counterintuitive. In our
everyday lives, space and time are perceived as rigid and universal.
Instead, Einstein conceived of space and time-space-time-as a thing
that could flex and change, expanding and shrinking according to the
relative motions of the observer and the thing observed. The only
aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And
ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into
the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are
written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of
light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the
vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of experiments have verified this
basic tenet, and the theory of relativity has become central to our
understanding of how the universe works."

http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_page...ussi-26285.php
Alexandre Moatti: "L'expérience de Michelson et Morley, en 1887, en
est un premier exemple. Par la mesure des interférences obtenues lors
de deux trajets lumineux perpendiculaires (l'un dans le sens Nord-Sud,
l'autre dans le sens Est-Ouest, celui du déplacement terrestre),
l'expérience aurait dû mettre en évidence sur le trajet Est-Ouest une
vitesse de la lumière diminuée de la vitesse de rotation de la Terre
autour du Soleil. Il n'en fut rien. Ce résultat négatif a été expliqué
en 1905 par la théorie de la relativité restreinte d'Einstein, qui
stipule notamment que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est une
constante absolue, indépendante de l'observateur et de son mouvement.
L'expérience de Michelson et Morley a été répétée depuis un siècle
avec des dispositifs de plus en plus précis, et a toujours donné un
résultat négatif, confirmant la théorie de la relativité."

http://www.erudit.org/culture/libert...66/59825ac.pdf
Hubert Reeves: "Historiquement, tout a commencé lorsque, vers 1880,
deux physiciens, Michelson et Morley, obtinrent après une expérience
célèbre un résultat parfaitement irréconciliable avec les théories de
la physique contemporaine. L'existence de ce résultat provoqua dans le
monde de la physique un malaise qui dura plusieurs années. Nombre de
physiciens s'efforcèrent de réconcilier la théorie avec l'expérience,
certains allant même jusqu'à supposer l'existence d'une conspiration
de la nature contre les physiciens. En 1905, le jeune Einstein reprit
le problème à neuf, et proposa d'établir en principe fondamental de la
physique l'inéluctable et malencontreux résultat de Michelson et
Morley. Sur ce principe on rebâtirait toute la physique, et on
réévaluerait les idées acceptées à la lumière de leur compatibilité
avec ce principe. De là est née la théorie de la relativité. Ce
principe est le suivant : si un observateur mesure la vitesse de la
lumière provenant d'une source lumineuse, il trouvera toujours la même
valeur, soit 186,000 milles à la seconde (vitesse qu'on appelle la
vitesse c) quel que soit l'état de mouvement de la source. En d'autres
mots, que la source s'approche on s'éloigne de moi, sa lumière vient
toujours vers moi avec la même vitesse. Que cet énoncé, en apparence
anodin, puisse avoir des conséquences assez étranges, on le verra
facilement par l'exemple suivant : je considère une source qui
s'éloigne de moi avec une vitesse voisine de c (la vitesse de la
lumière) ; à première vue, je suis porté à raisonner comme ceci : la
lumière qui vient de la source vers moi aura peine à me ratrapper et
me parviendra grandement ralentie. Notre principe, basé sur
l'expérience, affirme que la vitesse de la lumière est toujours, là
comme ailleurs, égale à c."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://205.188.238.109/time/time100/...of_rela6a.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
moving."

Pentcho Valev

  #2  
Old August 23rd 11, 06:30 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default HONEST ALBERT, DISHONEST EINSTEINIANS?

Dishonest Albert teaches dishonest Einsteinians to camouflage the
falsehood of his 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://bartleby.net/173/7.html
Albert Einstein: "THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that
according to which light is propagated in empty space. Every child at
school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation takes place
in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec. (...) If a ray
of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the
tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the
embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again
travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its
direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of
course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of
the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can
here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of
light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the
carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here
replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the
required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w
= c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the
carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into
conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V. For,
like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of
light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the
same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are
the body of reference. But, from our above consideration, this would
appear to be impossible. If every ray of light is propagated relative
to the embankment with the velocity c, then for this reason it would
appear that another law of propagation of light must necessarily hold
with respect to the carriage - a result contradictory to the principle
of relativity."

Dishonest Einsteinians brilliantly develop Dishonest Albert's idea:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/bup.pdf
Jean-Marc LÉVY-LEBLOND: "Maintenant il s'agit de savoir si le photon a
vraiment une masse nulle. Pour un physicien, il est absolument
impossible d'affirmer qu'une grandeur, quelle qu'elle soit, a
rigoureusement la valeur zéro, pas plus d'ailleurs que n'importe
quelle autre valeur. Tout ce que je sais de la masse du photon, c'est
ce que disent mes collègues expérimentateurs : "Elle est très faible !
Inférieure, selon nos mesures actuelles, à 10^(-50)kg". Mais si
demain, on découvre que cette masse est non-nulle, alors, le photon ne
va pas à la vitesse de la lumière... Certes, il irait presque toujours
à une vitesse tellement proche de la vitesse limite que nous ne
verrions que difficilement la différence, mais conceptuellement, il
pourrait exister des photons immobiles, et la différence est
essentielle. Or, nous ne saurons évidemment jamais si la masse est
rigoureusement nulle ; nous pourrons diminuer la borne supérieure,
mais jamais l'annuler. Acceptons donc l'idée que la masse du photon
est nulle, et que les photons vont à la vitesse limite, mais
n'oublions pas que ce n'est pas une nécessité. Cela est important pour
la raison suivante. Supposez que demain un expérimentateur soit
capable de vraiment mettre la main sur le photon, et de dire qu'il n'a
pas une masse nulle. Qu'il a une masse de, mettons 10^(-60)kg. Sa
masse n'est pas nulle, et du coup la lumière ne va plus à la "vitesse
de la lumière". Vous pouvez imaginer les gros titres dans les
journaux : "La théorie de la relativité s'effondre", "Einstein s'est
trompé", etc. Or cette éventuelle observation ne serait en rien
contradictoire avec la théorie de la relativité ! Einstein a certe
construit sa théorie en analysant des échanges de signaux lumineux
propagés à la vitesse limite. Si on trouve que le photon a une masse
non-nulle, ce sera que cette vitesse n'est pas la vitesse limite, et
la démonstration initiale s'effondre donc. Mais ce n'est pas parce
qu'une démonstration est erronée que son résultat est faux ! Quand
vous avez une table à plusieurs pieds, vous pouvez en couper un, elle
continue à tenir debout. Et heureusement, la théorie de la relativité
a plusieurs pieds."

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 en évidence 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
procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle
invalidée ? 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 économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la
condition de l'exploiter à fond."

http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdona..._44_271_76.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 relalivity. It would,
however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance
of the photon velocity."

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)."

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://www.newscientist.com/article/...elativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity
29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST
"This "second postulate" is the source of all Einstein's eccentric
physics of shrinking space and haywire clocks. And with a little
further thought, it leads to the equivalence of mass and energy
embodied in the iconic equation E = mc2. The argument is not about the
physics, which countless experiments have confirmed. It is about
whether we can reach the same conclusions without hoisting light onto
its highly irregular pedestal. (...) But in fact, says Feigenbaum,
both Galileo and Einstein missed a surprising subtlety in the maths -
one that renders Einstein's second postulate superfluous. (...) The
idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light could
actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a nasty
shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles of
light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small - less
than 10-49 grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply that our
understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that electric
charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough, but a
massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second postulate,
as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same
speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists'
beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts: "As I said before, Special Relativity would not be
affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second postulate is
not required in a modern derivation (using group theory one obtains
three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted
experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern
physics would not be threatened.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the
constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the
theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for
it in the theory. (...) We can make a few guesses. There is a
"villain" in the story, who, of course, is Newton."

Pentcho Valev

  #3  
Old August 23rd 11, 08:00 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default HONEST ALBERT, DISHONEST EINSTEINIANS?

Dishonest Albert teaches dishonest Einsteinians to camouflage the
extremely dangerous fact that the speed of photons varies exactly as
the speed of cannonballs does (in accordance with Newton's emission
theory of light):

http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...n_gravity.html
Albert Einstein 1911: "Nothing compels us to assume that the clocks U
in different gravitation potentials must be regarded as going at the
same rate. On the contrary, we must certainly define the time in K in
such a way that the number of wave crests and troughs between S2 and
S1 is independent of the absolute value of time: for the process under
observation is by nature a stationary one. If we did not satisfy this
condition, we should arrive at a definition of time by the application
of which time would merge explicitly into the laws of nature, and this
would certainly be unnatural and unpractical. Therefore the two clocks
in S1 and S2 do not both give the "time" correctly. If we measure time
in S1 with the clock U, then we must measure time in S2 with a clock
which goes 1+phi/c^2 times more slowly than the clock U when compared
with U at one and the same place. For when measured by such a clock
the frequency of the ray of light which is considered above is at its
emission in S2 (...) equal to the frequency v1 of the same ray of
light on its arrival in S1. This has a consequence which is of
fundamental importance for our theory. For if we measure the velocity
of light at different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free
system K', employing clocks U of identical constitution we obtain the
same magnitude at all these places. The same holds good, by our
fundamental assumption, for the system K as well. But from what has
just been said we must use clocks of unlike constitution for measuring
time at places with differing gravitation potential. For measuring
time at a place which, relatively to the origin of the co-ordinates,
has the gravitation potential phi, we must employ a clock which - when
removed to the origin of co-ordinates - goes (1+phi/c^2) times more
slowly than the clock used for measuring time at the origin of co-
ordinates. If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-
ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the
gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/
c^2)."

Dishonest Einsteinians brilliantly develop Dishonest Albert's idea:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Chapter 14 ( http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
):
David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed. (...) This GR time-dilation effect was
first measured at Harvard by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma
rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease
in frequency) at the top."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Another prediction of general relativity is that
time should appear to slower near a massive body like the earth. This
is because there is a relation between the energy of light and its
frequency (that is, the number of waves of light per second): the
greater the energy, the higher frequency. As light travels upward in
the earths gravitational field, it loses energy, and so its frequency
goes down. (This means that the length of time between one wave crest
and the next goes up.) To someone high up, it would appear that
everything down below was making longer to happen. This prediction was
tested in 1962, using a pair of very accurate clocks mounted at the
top and bottom of a water tower. The clock at the bottom, which was
nearer the earth, was found to run slower, in exact agreement with
general relativity."

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 2, Chapter 42-6:
Richard Feynman: "Suppose we put a clock at the "head" of the rocket
ship - that is, at the front end - and we put another identical clock
at the "tail," as in fig. 42-16. Let's call the two clocks A and B. If
we compare these two clocks when the ship is accelerating, the clock
at the head seems to run fast relative to the one at the tail. To see
that, imagine that the front clock emits a flash of light each second,
and that you are sitting at the tail comparing the arival of the light
flashes with the ticks of clock B. (...) The first flash travels the
distance L1 and the second flash travels the shorter distance L2. It
is a shorter distance because the ship is acelerating and has a higher
speed at the time of the second flash. You can see, then, that if the
two flashes were emitted from clock A one second apart, they would
arrive at clock B with a separation somewhat less than one second,
since the second flash doesn't spend as much time on the way."

http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/RELATIVIT...20Thibault.htm
Thibault Damour: "D'un point de vue plus général, puisque la fréquence
d'une raie spectrale définit une "horloge" à l'échelle atomique, le
principe d'équivalence prédit l'existence d'une dilatation
gravitationnelle des durées lors de la comparaison de deux horloges
situées à des niveaux de potentiel gravitationnel différents."

http://www.liberation.fr/sciences/01...uete-des-temps
Etienne Klein: "Mais pour la relativité générale d'Einstein, l'espace
et le temps sont déformés par les objets qu'ils contiennent. Ainsi le
temps ne s'écoule pas de la même façon au voisinage d'une étoile très
dense qu'à proximité d'une planète."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/op...t-we-knew.html
Brian Greene: "In the early part of the 20th century, however, Albert
Einstein saw through nature's Newtonian facade and revealed that the
passage of time depends on circumstance and environment. He showed
that the wris****ches worn by two individuals moving relative to one
another, or experiencing different gravitational fields, tick off time
at different rates. The passage of time, according to Einstein, is in
the eye of the beholder. (...) Rudolf Carnap, the philosopher,
recounts Einstein's telling him that ''the experience of the now means
something special for man, something essentially different from the
past and the future, but this important difference does not and cannot
occur within physics.'' And later, in a condolence letter to the widow
of Michele Besso, his longtime friend and fellow physicist, Einstein
wrote: ''In quitting this strange world he has once again preceded me
by just a little. That doesn't mean anything. For we convinced
physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only
an illusion, however persistent.'' (...) Now, however, modern physics'
notion of time is clearly at odds with the one most of us have
internalized. Einstein greeted the failure of science to confirm the
familiar experience of time with ''painful but inevitable
resignation.'' The developments since his era have only widened the
disparity between common experience and scientific knowledge. Most
physicists cope with this disparity by compartmentalizing: there's
time as understood scientifically, and then there's time as
experienced intuitively. For decades, I've struggled to bring my
experience closer to my understanding. In my everyday routines, I
delight in what I know is the individual's power, however
imperceptible, to affect time's passage. In my mind's eye, I often
conjure a kaleidoscopic image of time in which, with every step, I
further fracture Newton's pristine and uniform conception. And in
moments of loss I've taken comfort from the knowledge that all events
exist eternally in the expanse of space and time, with the partition
into past, present and future being a useful but subjective
organization."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
relativity."

Pentcho Valev

  #4  
Old August 23rd 11, 01:51 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default HONEST ALBERT, DISHONEST EINSTEINIANS?

Dishonest Albert teaches dishonest Einsteinians to camouflage the
obvious absurdity of the twin (clock) paradox. As the travelling clock
undergoes the turn-around acceleration, some miraculous "faster pace"
pounces at the stay-at-home clock. Dishonest Albert's calculations
show that "this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as
the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4":

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog...f_rela tivity
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (1918), by
Albert Einstein
"...according to the special theory of relativity the coordinate
systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed this
theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated)
coordinate systems, that is, coordinate systems relative to which
sufficiently isolated, material points move in straight lines and
uniformly. K is such a coordinate system, but not the system K', that
is accelerated from time to time. Therefore, from the result that
after the motion to and fro the clock U2 is running behind U1, no
contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory.
(...) During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a
velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2.
However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during
partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a
clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the
location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens
to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The
calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice
as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4.
This consideration completely clears up the paradox that you brought
up."

Dishonest Einsteinians brilliantly develop Dishonest Albert's idea.
Dishonest Albert's miraculous "faster pace" is now converted into
jumping "suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "Now consider the judgments of simultaneity of the
traveling twin, as shown in the spacetime diagram opposite. Since the
traveling twin is moving very rapidly, the traveler's hypersurfaces of
simultaneity are quite tilted. Two hypersurfaces of simultaneity are
shown in the lower part of the diagram for the outward part of the
traveler's journey. These are the hypersurfaces that pass through the
event at which the clock reads 1 day and just before the turn-around
at the traveler's clock time of 2 days. We read from these
hypersurfaces that the traveling twin judges the stay-at-home twin's
clock to be running at half the speed of the travelers. When the
traveler's clock reads 1 day, the stay-at-home twin's reads 1/2 day;
just before the turn around, when the traveler's clock is almost at 2
days, the stay-at-home twin's clock is almost at 1 day. Then, at the
end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion,
accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to
earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of
the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of
simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up
dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock
reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home
twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will
judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from
reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home
twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible
for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when
they reunite."

Pentcho Valev

  #5  
Old August 23rd 11, 04:11 PM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default HONEST ALBERT, DISHONEST EINSTEINIANS?

Needless to say, camouflaging the obvious absurdity of the twin
(clock) paradox would not be fully effective if the turn-around
acceleration is always crucial, as Dishonest Albert taught in 1918 and
as some dishonest Einsteinians teach nowadays. Believers' minds get
irreversibly paralyzed when other dishonest Einsteinians declare that
the turn-around acceleration is not important at all:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/...tivity2010.pdf
Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack
has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of
the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect
that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the
effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical
accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as
far. This would give twice the amount of time gained."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Dishonest Albert teaches dishonest Einsteinians to camouflage the
obvious absurdity of the twin (clock) paradox. As the travelling clock
undergoes the turn-around acceleration, some miraculous "faster pace"
pounces at the stay-at-home clock. Dishonest Albert's calculations
show that "this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as
the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4":

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dialog...f_rela tivity
Dialog about Objections against the Theory of Relativity (1918), by
Albert Einstein
"...according to the special theory of relativity the coordinate
systems K and K' are by no means equivalent systems. Indeed this
theory asserts only the equivalence of all Galilean (unaccelerated)
coordinate systems, that is, coordinate systems relative to which
sufficiently isolated, material points move in straight lines and
uniformly. K is such a coordinate system, but not the system K', that
is accelerated from time to time. Therefore, from the result that
after the motion to and fro the clock U2 is running behind U1, no
contradiction can be constructed against the principles of the theory.
(...) During the partial processes 2 and 4 the clock U1, going at a
velocity v, runs indeed at a slower pace than the resting clock U2.
However, this is more than compensated by a faster pace of U1 during
partial process 3. According to the general theory of relativity, a
clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the
location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens
to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The
calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice
as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4.
This consideration completely clears up the paradox that you brought
up."

Dishonest Einsteinians brilliantly develop Dishonest Albert's idea.
Dishonest Albert's miraculous "faster pace" is now converted into
jumping "suddenly from reading 1 day to reading 7 days":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...yon/index.html
John Norton: "Now consider the judgments of simultaneity of the
traveling twin, as shown in the spacetime diagram opposite. Since the
traveling twin is moving very rapidly, the traveler's hypersurfaces of
simultaneity are quite tilted. Two hypersurfaces of simultaneity are
shown in the lower part of the diagram for the outward part of the
traveler's journey. These are the hypersurfaces that pass through the
event at which the clock reads 1 day and just before the turn-around
at the traveler's clock time of 2 days. We read from these
hypersurfaces that the traveling twin judges the stay-at-home twin's
clock to be running at half the speed of the travelers. When the
traveler's clock reads 1 day, the stay-at-home twin's reads 1/2 day;
just before the turn around, when the traveler's clock is almost at 2
days, the stay-at-home twin's clock is almost at 1 day. Then, at the
end of the outward leg, the traveler abruptly changes motion,
accelerating sharply to adopt a new inertial motion directed back to
earth. What comes now is the key part of the analysis. The effect of
the change of motion is to alter completely the traveler's judgment of
simultaneity. The traveler's hypersurfaces of simultaneity now flip up
dramatically. Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock
reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home
twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will
judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have jumped suddenly from
reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home
twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible
for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when
they reunite."

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
IF EINSTEINIANS WERE HONEST Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 8 July 10th 08 01:12 PM
IT'S 1950 ALL OVER AGAIN -- Scientists Still as Dishonest as Then -- No Change Since Velikovsky's Day Ed Conrad History 2 August 27th 06 07:37 PM
IT'S 1950 ALL OVER AGAIN -- Scientists Still as Dishonest as Then -- No Change Since Velikovsky's Day Hagar Misc 0 August 27th 06 07:12 PM
PING Art: Rhusty Is Taking Lessons From Dishonest John Art Deco Misc 2 April 10th 06 01:18 AM
PING Art: Rhusty Is Taking Lessons From Dishonest John Misc 1 April 9th 06 07:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:46 PM.


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.