|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN AND THE END OF PHYSICS
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." How did Einstein base his theory on the field concept? By adopting the false tenet of the ether field theory - "the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source": http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf "The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field.." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." Happy Einsteinians in the postscientific era: http://edge.org/sites/default/files/...cture-20_0.jpg http://www.news.ucsb.edu/sites/www.n...Polchinski.jpg http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2013/013823...oning-einstein University of California Santa Barbara, December 10, 2013: "Could Einstein's theory of relativity be wrong? That's among the burning questions being asked by theoretical physicists today. It's a startling claim and one that has received a lot of attention from other scientists. Researchers from UC Santa Barbara's Department of Physics and the Kavli Institute for Theretical Physics (KITP) have received a $1.32 million dollar grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to continue their work on finding an answer." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN AND THE END OF PHYSICS
Il giorno luned́ 13 aprile 2015 10:56:07 UTC+2, Pentcho Valev ha scritto:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics." How did Einstein base his theory on the field concept? By adopting the false tenet of the ether field theory - "the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source": http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf "The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ "And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous.." Happy Einsteinians in the postscientific era: http://edge.org/sites/default/files/...cture-20_0.jpg http://www.news.ucsb.edu/sites/www.n...Polchinski.jpg http://www.news.ucsb.edu/2013/013823...oning-einstein University of California Santa Barbara, December 10, 2013: "Could Einstein's theory of relativity be wrong? That's among the burning questions being asked by theoretical physicists today. It's a startling claim and one that has received a lot of attention from other scientists. Researchers from UC Santa Barbara's Department of Physics and the Kavli Institute for Theretical Physics (KITP) have received a $1.32 million dollar grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to continue their work on finding an answer." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..." Pentcho Valev ....the speed of ligth is indipendent of the speed of the ligth sourse , but depending to the speed of the gravitational field acrossed , with changement of frequency ,, |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
EINSTEIN AND THE END OF PHYSICS
This publication in Science marked the end of Einstein's relativity:
http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/ "Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release." http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015.../1191422035480 "The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently." Clever Einsteinians are desperately looking for a new money-spinner. Their hero is John Baez, once world Einsteinan No. 1 and a merciless persecutor of antirelativists, who foresaw the catastrophe many years ago and abandoned the sinking ship: http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both, OUR PICTURE OF THE WORLD WILL BE DEEPLY SCHIZOPHRENIC. (...) So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity." http://www.reset-italia.net/wp-conte...iam-andiam.jpg Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HOW EINSTEIN KILLED PHYSICS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | July 27th 14 11:47 AM |
Physics Today: Discoverers of the accelerating expansion of the universeshare this year's physics Nobel | Sam Wormley[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | October 6th 11 11:27 PM |
EINSTEIN AND THE DEATH OF PHYSICS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | April 26th 09 12:56 PM |
DID AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICS REFUTE EINSTEIN? | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 28 | October 31st 07 03:45 AM |
EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT MAY RESURRECT PHYSICS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 13 | July 17th 07 07:31 PM |