|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |