EINSTEINIANS KNOW NO LIMITS

On May 19, 4:58*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae13.cfm

QUESTION
Would not the speed of a light beam headed toward a black hole
increase tremendously? We do know it could be bent by the gravity of a
star.
Asked by: Joe Thomas

ANSWER
Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases
as the black hole is approached. In fact, one way to understand the
bending of light by the gravitational field of a star is to regard it
as resulting from the refraction of the wavefront due to the fact that
the part of the wavefront that is nearer to the star moves more slowly
than the part farther away from the star. The result is that the
direction of advance of the wavefront is deflected toward (or around)
the star. If the photon, the 'particle' of light, is thought of as
behaving like a massive object, it would indeed be accelerated to
higher speeds as it falls toward a black hole. However, the photon has
no mass and so behaves in a manner that is not intuitively obvious.
Answered by: Warren Davis, Ph.D., President, Davis Associates, Inc.,
Newton, MA USA

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Tense-Cau.../dp/0198250746
Time, Tense, and Causation by Michael Tooley

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00001/art00017
Michael Tooley: "According to the Special Theory of Relativity, there
is no such thing as absolute simultaneity, contrary to the view
defended in the book. However, this chapter demonstrates that the
Special Theory of Relativity can be modified so as to allow absolute
simultaneity."

Pentcho Valev

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 enévidence 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
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? 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 economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.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 relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

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://groups.google.ca/group/sci.ph...34dc146100e32c
Tom Roberts, Feb 1, 2006: "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)."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
This reprints an essay written ca. 1983, "'What Song the Syrens Sang':
How Did Einstein Discover Special Relativity?" in John Stachel,
Einstein from "B" to "Z".
"This does not imply that Lorentz's equations are adequate to explain
all the features of light, of course. Einstein already knew they did
not always correctly do so-in particular in the processes of its
emission, absorption and its behavior in black body radiation. Indeed,
his new velocity addition law is also compatible with an emission
theory of light, just because the speed of light compounded with any
lesser velocity still yields the same value. If we model a beam of
light as a stream of particles, the two principles can still be
obeyed. A few years later (1909), Einstein first publicly expressed
the view that an adequate future theory of light would have to be some
sort of fusion of the wave and emission theories."

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "But there is another possibility. This is that the
principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of
relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a
speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned
in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have
an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of
relativity!"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "But there is another possibility. This is that the
principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of
relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a
speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned
in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have
an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of
relativity!"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."

Pentcho Valev


hanson wrote:
ahahahahahaha... Pentcho, you, Magueijo, Moffat & Smolin
make it all too complicated.
It all boils down to Andro's 3-liner (1,2,3) below:

"Androcles" wrote
Why did Einstein say
(1) the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
(2) the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
(3) the "time" each way is the same?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

hanson wrote:
ahahaha... Andro, you have that post-script on for a
week now and alluded to it for years. Yet AFAICS not a
single one of the Einstein Dingleberries gave the obvious,
glaring answer that stares into the face of these fanatics.
.... All that one of the EDs came up with and then was
parroted by a few others, was them saying:
"But Einstein didn't say that"... despite the fact that
Albert so did.... ahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
http://www.zionism-israel.com/Albert...in_Specrel.htm

Why are these self-aggrandizing EDs not capable of
facing the fact that Einstein **HAD** to say that
because... ... ... ... Now, here is the chance for you EDs
to finish that sentence and show that you really do
UNDERSTAND REL, for if not then you EDs are nothing
more than Sunday school children, infantile BELIEVERS,
who are reciting and interpreting their bible.... worshipping
and following all the **** that it contains and represents...
ahahaha... AHAHAHA.. ahahaha.... ahahanson

On May 27, 8:22*pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

...



http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "But there is another possibility. This is that the
principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of
relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a
speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned
in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have
an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of
relativity!"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."

Pentcho Valev


hanson wrote:

ahahahahahaha... Pentcho, you, Magueijo, Moffat & Smolin
make it all too complicated.
It all boils down to Andro's 3-liner (1,2,3) below:

"Androcles" wrote
Why did Einstein say
(1) the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
(2) the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
(3) the "time" each way is the same?http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Where exactly did Einstein say that, hahahahanson? I would like to
analyse the original text. Just give the reference and, if possible,
the original text.

Pentcho Valev

On 27 Maj, 21:41, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On May 27, 8:22*pm, "hanson" wrote:





"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

...

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "But there is another possibility. This is that the
principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of
relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a
speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned
in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have
an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of
relativity!"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."

Pentcho Valev


hanson wrote:

ahahahahahaha... Pentcho, you, Magueijo, Moffat & Smolin
make it all too complicated.
It all boils down to Andro's 3-liner (1,2,3) below:

"Androcles" wrote
Why did Einstein say
(1) the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
(2) the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
(3) the "time" each way is the same?http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Where exactly did Einstein say that, hahahahanson? I would like to
analyse the original text. Just give the reference and, if possible,
the original text.

Pentcho Valev
- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

Well he actually did utter the idiotic statements in one and same
text, only 1 and 2.
Number three he i think is a result of his ******ideas****** and
*****postulate****** regarding light constancy don't you think.

On May 27, 9:51*pm, wrote:
On 27 Maj, 21:41, Pentcho Valev wrote:





On May 27, 8:22*pm, "hanson" wrote:

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

....

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "But there is another possibility. This is that the
principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory of
relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a
speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned
in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can have
an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of
relativity!"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."

Pentcho Valev


hanson wrote:

ahahahahahaha... Pentcho, you, Magueijo, Moffat & Smolin
make it all too complicated.
It all boils down to Andro's 3-liner (1,2,3) below:

"Androcles" wrote
Why did Einstein say
(1) the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
(2) the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
(3) the "time" each way is the same?http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

Where exactly did Einstein say that, hahahahanson? I would like to
analyse the original text. Just give the reference and, if possible,
the original text.

Pentcho Valev
- Dölj citerad text -

- Visa citerad text -

Well he actually did utter the idiotic statements in one and same
text, only 1 and 2.
Number three he i think is a result of his ******ideas****** and
*****postulate****** regarding light constancy don't you think.

Why don't you refer me to the original text? Androcles? hahahahanson?
Where is Einstein's original text?

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
On May 27, 9:51 pm, wrote:
On 27 Maj, 21:41, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On May 27, 8:22 pm, "hanson" wrote:

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "But there is another possibility. This is that the
principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory
of
relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a
speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned
in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can
have
an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of
relativity!"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."

Pentcho Valev


hanson wrote:
ahahahahahaha... Pentcho, you, Magueijo, Moffat & Smolin
make it all too complicated.
It all boils down to Andro's 3-liner (1,2,3) below:
"Androcles" wrote
Why did Einstein say
(1) the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
(2) the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
(3) the "time" each way is the same?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Pentcho Valev"
Where exactly did Einstein say that, hahahahanson? I would like to
analyse the original text. Just give the reference and, if possible,
the original text.
Pentcho Valev

wrote in message
...
Well he actually did utter the idiotic statements in one and same
text, only 1 and 2.
Number three he i think is a result of his ******ideas****** and
*****postulate****** regarding light constancy don't you think.

"Pentcho Valev"
Why don't you refer me to the original text? Androcles? hahahahanson?
Where is Einstein's original text? [... ahahaha.. you snipped it,
Pentcho!]
Pentcho Valev --

hanson wrote:
Bravo, jonas thornvall, you gave an incisive answer on 1 and 2
and on (3) your guess right too but you have not yet answered
WHY that postulate was necessary... ahahaha...
and Pentcho, shame on you. For the first time you disappoint me.
You snipped the Zionist link I posted , twice, in my previous post
AND in the other thread.

Go look it up. It's all right in there, in AE's original 1905 paper.
You should be able, with a single critical read-thru, to see 1, 2 & 3
and conclude beyond a shadow of a doubt, facing the fact, that
Einstein **HAD** to say that because... ... ... ...
Now, here is your chance to shine. Do it, Pentcho.
ahahaha... ahahahanson

On May 27, 11:42*pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message

...
On May 27, 9:51 pm, wrote:



On 27 Maj, 21:41, Pentcho Valev wrote:
On May 27, 8:22 pm, "hanson" wrote:

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
....
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smol...n03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "But there is another possibility. This is that the
principle of relativity is preserved, but Einstein's special theory
of
relativity requires modification so as to allow photons to have a
speed that depends on energy. The most shocking thing I have learned
in the last year is that this is a real possibility. A photon can
have
an energy-dependent speed without violating the principle of
relativity!"

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.4507v1.pdf
Joao Magueijo and John W. Moffat: "The question is then: If Lorentz
invariance is broken, what happens to the speed of light? Given that
Lorentz invariance follows from two postulates -- (1) relativity of
observers in inertial frames of reference and (2) constancy of the
speed of light--it is clear that either or both of those principles
must be violated."

Pentcho Valev


hanson wrote:
ahahahahahaha... Pentcho, you, Magueijo, Moffat & Smolin
make it all too complicated.
It all boils down to Andro's 3-liner (1,2,3) below:
"Androcles" wrote
Why did Einstein say
(1) the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
(2) the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
(3) the "time" each way is the same?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"Pentcho Valev" Where exactly did Einstein say that, hahahahanson? I would like to
analyse the original text. Just give the reference and, if possible,
the original text.
Pentcho Valev

wrote in message

... Well he actually did utter the idiotic statements in one and same
text, only 1 and 2.
Number three he i think is a result of his ******ideas****** and
*****postulate****** regarding light constancy don't you think.

"Pentcho Valev"
Why don't you refer me to the original text? Androcles? hahahahanson?
Where is Einstein's original text? * [... ahahaha.. you snipped it,
Pentcho!]
Pentcho Valev --

hanson wrote:

Bravo, jonas thornvall, you gave an incisive answer on 1 and 2
and on (3) your guess right too but you have not yet answered
WHY that postulate was necessary... ahahaha...
and Pentcho, shame on you. For the first time you disappoint me.
You snipped the Zionist link I posted , twice, in my previous post
AND in the other thread.

I don't think Einsteiniana has anything to do with the fact that
Einstein was a Jew. Clausius was not a Jew and yet his contribution to
the destruction of human rationality is much greater than that of
Einstein. People just need miracles: mysterious entropy that always
increases, twin that travels into the future and remains young etc.
Science without miracles is dull and people replace it with science
WITH miracles.

Pentcho Valev