EINSTEINIANS AS MARAUDERS

Einsteiniana's marauders know no limits:

Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, p. 50:
"En cours de route, en 1911, Einstein proposa même une théorie où la
vitesse de la lumière variait! Aujourd'hui, les scientifiques sont
soit horrifiés par cette article écrit par le grand Albert Einstein,
alors professeur à Prague, soit tout simplement ignorants de son
existence. Banesh Hoffmann, collègue et biographe d'Einstein, décrit
ce texte de la manière suivante: "Et cela signifie... Quoi? Que la
vitesse de la lumière n'est pas constante, que la gravitation la
ralentit. Hérésie! Et de la part d'Einstein lui-même."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Theoretical physics has been schizophrenic for a long time but still
from time to time a reasonable question surprises Einsteiniana's
marauders. They don't reply or give an answer as idiotic as possible:

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/reso...photonmass.htm
"Question: Do photons have mass? If not, why does the gravitational
field of a star bend passing light?
"A particle like a photon is never at rest and always moves at the
speed of light; thus it is massless," says Dr. Michael S. Turner,
chair of the Department of Astrophysics at the University of
Chicago."

This Turner surely knows that in 1911 Einstein showed that the speed
of a photon varies with the gravitational potential exactly as the
speed of a cannonball does, in accordance with Newton's emission
theory of light. Then in 1915 Einstein found it profitable to discover
that the speed of the photon is even more variable but in any case
Turner's statement "a photon...always moves at the speed of light" is
a blatant lie. According to Einstein's relativity, a photon NEVER
moves at the speed of light in a gravitational field:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, 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
and to which we have already frequently referred, 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. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf
). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in
the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in
1911."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteiniana's marauders destroy the scientific rationality by first
teaching idiocies, then denouncing the idiocies, then teaching the
same idiocies again. Examples of "denouncing the idiocies":

http://www.tgdaily.com/general-scien...t-exist-at-all
"Dark matter and dark energy may not exist at all. Everything we know
about the composition of the universe may be wrong, according to
physicists."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6...-be-wrong.html
Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/26essay.html
"The worrying continued. Lawrence Krauss, a cosmologist from Arizona
State, said that most theories were wrong. "We get the notions they
are right because we keep talking about them," he said. Not only are
most theories wrong, he said, but most data are also wrong..."

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc.../87150187.html
"Dark Energy: The Biggest Mystery in the Universe (...) "We have a
complete inventory of the universe," Sean Carroll, a California
Institute of Technology cosmologist, has said, "and it makes no
sense."

Thid does not necessarily mean that Einsteiniana's marauders are bad
people. Billions can only come when rationality is destroyed and the
scientific community is unable to react. Nothing personal, just
business:

http://www.physorg.com/news179508040.html
"More than a dozen ground-based Dark Energy projects are proposed or
under way, and at least four space-based missions, each of the order
of a billion dollars, are at the design concept stage."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteiniana's marauders combining science and cultu

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/cu...o-science.html
"Now physicist Brian Greene has left hard data and cryptic equations
behind to venture into classical mythology, reimagining the Greek
story of Icarus, the boy who flew too close to the sun. In 2008,
Greene came out with an illustrated book version of Icarus at the Edge
of Time (watch New Scientist's video interview with Greene about the
book). Last week, the full multimedia musical premiered at the third
annual World Science Festival in New York. The Festival itself is a
project created by Greene and his wife that seeks to combine science
and culture. (...) Einstein's theory of general relativity predicts
that for someone approaching a black hole, time slows down relative to
the external universe. Greene uses this concept of "time dilation" to
help Icarus avoid death."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardia...cist-brian-cox
"...presenter and particle physicist Brian Cox snuggling down on to
the floor of Death Valley with an umbrella, a can of water, and a
thermometer, and proving (after Herschel) just how hot the sun
actually is. Suffused in smiles, he punched the umbrella bashfully
into the sand. "And that's why I love physics." (...) ...the general
theory of relativity was a genuine aesthetic choice, really. There was
no experimental justification for going beyond Newton's laws of
gravity. It was purely aesthetic. "But it predicts things. I find it
amazing, for example, that you get binary pulsars" – a kind of small
but dense star - "orbiting around each other a thousand times a second
– the most violent thing you can imagine, churning up space and time.
And you make measurements with radio telescopes, and you get the
answer that Einstein's theory predicts - and he wrote that in 1915,
when he didn't know about pulsars, and he didn't know about radio
telescopes. But you're right - a good scientist, a really pure
scientist, would have to accept that that constant drive to unify
forces together and to find a simpler, more economical description of
nature, is really a choice - it's an act of - I was going to say an
act of faith, but that makes it sound mystical, and there's nothing
mystical about science actually."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ExiJKbeuY
Prof Brian Cox explores Einstein's understanding of time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiSpNh_e-0o&NR=1
Prof Brian Cox explores Time in super slow motion

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle1985696.ece
"They call me the Liam Gallagher of physics. (...) But now consider
Professor Brian Cox, the 40-year-old who's turning the image of
physics on its head. He's the bloke who used to play keyboards in
D:Ream, the dance-rock band behind New Labour's anthem Things Can Only
Get Better. He cites Einstein as his inspiration, the No1 daddy of
physics who was actually a bit cooler than we think (...) He says:
"Close to the speed of light, you can go anywhere you want in the
future. You can get as far into the future as you want. That's just
orthodox. It was known in 1905." And get this..."If you go on a flight
to New York then come back again, you'll have aged slightly less than
the people who stayed here because you've gone into the future
slower!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b558k...C0155A9 09EEF
Silly Walks Applicant: "Well sir, I have a silly walk and I'd like to
obtain a Government grant to help me develop it....I think that with
Government backing I could make it very silly." Silly Walks Director:
"Mr Pudey, the very real problem is one of money. I'm afraid that the
Ministry of Silly Walks is no longer getting the kind of support it
needs. You see there's Defence, Social Security, Health, Housing,
Education, Silly Walks ... they're all supposed to get the same. But
last year, the Government spent less on the Ministry of Silly Walks
than it did on National Defence! Now we get 348,000,000 a year, which
is supposed to be spent on all our available products."

Pentcho Valev