The Silent End of Einstein's Relativity 1 Year, 10 Months ago
Karma: -17
Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does:
www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Bane...ffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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."
Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:
(Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity...")
Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's assertion should be discussed. The rest of the world couldn't care less about any analogy between light and cannonballs.
Re:The Silent End of Einstein's Relativity 1 Year, 10 Months ago
Karma: -17
A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f, speed c (relative to the source) and wavelength L. A receiver on the ground receives light with frequency f', speed c' (relative to the receiver) and wavelength L'. According to Newton's emission theory of light:
f'=f(1+gh/c^2); c'=c(1+gh/c^2); L'=L
A rocket of length h accelerates with acceleration g. A light source at the front end emits light with frequency f, speed c (relative to the source) and wavelength L. A receiver at the back end receives light with frequency f', speed c' (relative to the receiver) and wavelength L'. At the moment of reception, the receiver has speed v relative to the light source at the moment of emission. According to Newton's emission theory of light:
f'=f(1+v/c); c'=c+v; L'=L
Einstein did not offer any reasonable alternative to the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field predicted by the emission theory. Initially he was just using the emission theory equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2), then quite stupidly (or dishonestly) replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2). Here "stupidly" and "dishonestly" refer to the fact that c'=c(1+2gh/c^2) is not consistent with the gravitational redshift factor advanced by Einstein himself and experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka:
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."
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."
www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from: www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/histo.../1911_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."
Since the variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field is a fundamental tenet of Einstein's general relativity, it would be extremely difficult to camouflage it in a world where scientific rationality still exists. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world no camouflage is necessary: Einsteinians simply declare that the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field and that's it (believers sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" all along):
www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/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 Newtons 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...)"
www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_...;id=64&Itemid=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."
math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativit.../speed_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."
www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Re:The Silent End of Einstein's Relativity 1 Year, 10 Months ago
Karma: -5
QUOTE of Stephen Hawkings: "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."
Some sort of conservation of energy argument must be being applied here. Such a massive object is creating a flux of light coming out from the surface at ALL ANGLES from the surface and all the way from the centre. La Place must have known that stars with their temperature can contain so much heat changing into light from all of the intensive density points inside the spherical surface. The inside of the star has so much computable emitting Energy; the outside of the star at infinity has a computable potential Energy to FILL. Some kind of Radial Integral for the fluxes at all external points away from the Star. Thus this variable must at infinity (variable integral, essentially) be smaller than the stars internal static heat energy for say the temperature throughout the spherical volume of the inside of the star (hypothetically, the centre heat per volume has as much as at the surface)...
Should Newton's relativity allow for arbitrary integration for comparing numbers though? He meant relativity of spatial-temporal dynamics with respect to the absolute Whole of the observed celestial sphere.
It seems Newton's relativity to La Place at least was hypothetical geometric speculation. It is doubtful that the original relational theoretical constructs of the sky are at such liberty. But power to La Place for these mathematical insights.
yes, yes yes; Einstein's relativity is not broad enough for boundary determining mathematics.
Nah!!
Logged
Last Edit: 2010/07/13 14:22 By Plotin.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:The Silent End of Einstein's Relativity 1 Year, 10 Months ago
Karma: -17
Another unambiguous rejection of Einstein's relativity (Einsteinians do not react, the rest of the world does not care):
redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V17NO1PDF/V17N1GIF.pdf
Doppler Shift Reveals Light Speed Variation
Stephan J. G. Gift
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
The University of the West Indies
"Therefore the observed Doppler Shift or frequency change in the light or other electromagnetic radiation resulting from movement of the receiver toward the transmitter indicates a change in light speed relative to the moving receiver. (...) In conclusion, a change in radiation frequency or Doppler Shift occurs when an observer moving at speed v << c towards or away from a stationary source intercepts electromagnetic waves from that source. This frequency change arises because the observer intercepts the electromagnetic radiation at a relative speed c ± v that is different from the light speed c. Though special relativity predicts the Doppler Shift, this light speed variation c ± v occurring in this situation directly contradicts the light speed invariance requirement of special relativity."
The silence surrounding Einstein's 1905 false light postulate in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world is equivalent to the silence surrounding the equality 2+2=5 in Big Brother's schizophrenic world:
www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
Pentcho wrote: Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does:
www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Bane...ffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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."
Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:
(Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity...")
Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's assertion should be discussed. The rest of the world couldn't care less about any analogy between light and cannonballs.
Logged
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:The Silent End of Einstein's Relativity 1 Year, 10 Months ago
Karma: -17
"The end of Einstein's relativity" does not mean that Einstein's relativity is no longer a money-spinner:
www.physorg.com/news198431059.html
"The new results show that the growth of cosmic structure is consistent with the predictions of General Relativity, supporting the view that dark energy drives cosmic acceleration."
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."
"The end of Einstein's relativity" simply means that Einsteiniana's priests will exercise their priesthood somewhere else:
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. (...) I realized I didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So, I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."
Pentcho wrote: Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does:
www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Bane...ffmann/dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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."
Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:
(Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity...")
Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's assertion should be discussed. The rest of the world couldn't care less about any analogy between light and cannonballs.
Logged
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Re:The Silent End of Einstein's Relativity 1 Year, 10 Months ago
Karma: -5
QUOTE: "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."
This is making the corpuscular meta-physics itself contain a measure of Velocity without empirically performing Measurement. Means also there is no longer a serious acceleration to meaningfully take into consideration for the Judgment about force. Michelson-Morley performed their experiment with the explicit project of discovering the Newtonian eather physically causing the Absolute ground for motion in space and time.
Instead the metaphysics cannot any longer explain changes in velocity of bodies or particles for the Existence of space and time but instead the Existence of information and geometric Order. Is that any longer Physics?
Logged
Last Edit: 2010/07/16 10:09 By Plotin.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
Facebook.com
Twitter.com
