Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Pentcho Valev: on 11/17/11 at 14:36pm UTC, wrote Banesh Hoffmann contradicts Einstein very carefully: There is no...

Alan Lowey: on 11/17/11 at 11:05am UTC, wrote lol. The Earth has more landmasses in the northern hemisphere which fits...

Alan Lowey: on 11/16/11 at 14:13pm UTC, wrote Check out these photographs of the Moon's Craters. The dark comet tidal...

Pentcho Valev: on 11/16/11 at 14:00pm UTC, wrote It is easy to see that, if the time dilation factor (1+phi/c^2) introduced...

Paul Reed: on 11/16/11 at 5:47am UTC, wrote Pentcho You are right to point out that this use of clocks to effect...

Pentcho Valev: on 11/15/11 at 15:23pm UTC, wrote Einstein introduces gravitational time dilation: ...

Pentcho Valev: on 11/14/11 at 13:54pm UTC, wrote Variable speed of light in a gravitational field: The top of a tower of...

Paul Reed: on 11/14/11 at 11:24am UTC, wrote Eckard Just for the record, the curvature of light is dealt with by...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Lorraine Ford: "With the “A.I. Feynman” software, Silviu-Marian Udrescu and Max Tegmark..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

Georgina Woodward: "Coin toss co-state potentials: With the measurement protocol decided, in..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Hi Steve, Sabine Hossenffelder has written an interesting blog post on her..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "If we correlate with the consciousness, can we consider that all is..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Hi Ian Durham, Maybe still for the rankings and the links with this..." in Measuring Free Will: Ian...

Steve Dufourny: "Georgina,in the past we have discussed about this Fith force after the 3..." in Alternative Models of...

Steve Dufourny: "An other point very important considering this nature.Ecology is so..." in Will A.I. Take Over...

janey hug: "Vape Juice Wholesale When it pertains to vape juice, you require to obtain..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi BLOGS
October 22, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: Do Scientists (Choose to) Dream of Electric Fish? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Zeeya Merali wrote on Sep. 23, 2011 @ 15:31 GMT
Thank you everyone for your patience -- videos of talks from the FQXi conference on Time are now trickling through. The first videos are from the session on Choice ("Our experience of the future is based on choice. How do we choose? Can we choose?).

(For an excellent write-up of the biology talks from this session, as well as more on McDermott’s and Roediger’s talks that we covered from the Memory session, visit Scientific American, where George Musser has been blogging like an editor possessed since the conference. You’ll also find posts from him about some of the other sessions.)

First up, bioengineer Malcolm MacIver talking about electric fish and the evolutionary emergence of choice. Watch this if you want to know why the Amazonian electric fish doesn’t swim straight when hunting, but instead pitches its body at an angle of 30 degrees. The answer takes us to the difference between how aquatic and land animals find and catch prey, thanks to the difference between the speed of light in air and water, and to questions about how consciousness (and the ability to make choices rather than just react to surroundings) may have evolved. (MacIver’s slides are here.)



Oh and stay tuned to the end of the video to watch an electric fish orchestra (yes, an electric fish orchestra. MacIver: "This is the first electric fish composition, I sort of wondered if people would do things more John Cage like than eighties covers of Duran Duran.")

Next philosopher David Wallace does that thing philosophers are well known for: He framed one of the central questions of this conference (“Given the time symmetry of the equations of fundamental physics, how come the macroscopic world has such profound asymmetries in time?”) in a precise and articulate way (“How come the methods we actually use to derive the equations of macro-physics from more fundamental physics manage to produce time-asymmetric outputs from time-symmetric inputs?”). (Slides on the "The Logic of the Past Hypothesis.")

More here:



Neuroscientist David Eagleman’s talk covered “relativity in the brain” (slides here). He talked about ways you can trick people in the lab into thinking that something happened before it did, by getting them press a button that causes a flash of light. His team deliberately introduced a slight lag in time between the button press and the flash, and our brains apparently calibrate that time delay as “simultaneous.” Midway through the experiment his team shortened that delay by a tiny amount, confusing people into thinking the flash had appeared _before_ they pushed the button, though it did not.

Eagleman also talked about why time flies when you’re having fun and seems to slow when you’re in mortal danger (something he tested by throwing people off a tower, thankfully not at this meeting):



Philosopher Simon Saunders’ video is still to come. But as a taster, I’ll leave you with some of the questions from his talk, which examined the passage of time, framed in terms of consciousness and worldlines:

“Why is a thought so long and thin?”

“Why is it that, in the geometry of space-time, we are so long and thin?” (Stein)

“Why are atoms so small?” (Schrödinger)

“Why should an organ like our brain . . . of necessity consist of an enormous number of atoms, in order that its physically changing state should be in close and intimate correspondence with a highly developed thought?” (Schrödinger)

Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 24, 2011 @ 19:18 GMT
What happened to spacetimers? Hiding in a secret place? Glorious past and... no future? Julian Barbour is to blame perhaps:

http://fqxi.org/data/documents/conferences/2011-talk
s/barbour.pdf

Julian Barbour: "Was Spacetime a Glorious Historical Accident? (...) Absolute simultaneity restored!"

Jacques Maritain, Herbert Dingle, Walther Ritz, Bryan Wallace will no longer be unpersons. Spacetimers will:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-4.html

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 06:13 GMT
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1661/1/Minkowski.pdf

MINKOWSK
I SPACE-TIME: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY, Harvey Brown and Oliver Pooley

"It is argued that Minkowski space-time cannot serve as the deep structure within a "constructive" version of the special theory of relativity, contrary to widespread opinion in the philosophical community. (...) What has been shown is that rods and clocks must behave in quite particular ways in order for the two postulates to be true together. But this hardly amounts to an explanation of such behaviour. Rather things go the other way around. It is because rods and clocks behave as they do, in a way that is consistent with the relativity principle, that light is measured to have the same speed in each inertial frame."

Do rods and clocks behave "as they do"? That is, can arbitrarily long objects be trapped inside arbitrarily short containers? Can a bug be squashed according to one observer and alive and kicking according to another? If not, can light "have the same speed in each inertial frame"?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/b
arn_pole.html

"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. (...) ...the rod will be trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions

Stéphane Durand: "Ainsi, une fusée de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde, durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/
bugrivet.html

"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 25, 2011 @ 14:36 GMT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtMw2f5YJk0

Brian Cox explains the Block Universe

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_Tim
esNR.pdf

John Norton: "When Minkowski (1908) introduced the routine use of spacetime into physics, it seemed that this represented the victory of a particular view of time. Minkowski's spacetime represented all there was: past, present and future, and all at once. Did this finally vindicate an idea whose pedigree traces back to Parmenides in antiquity: time and change are mere illusions? (...) Might there be something special in the nature of the relativistic spacetime that supports the illusory character of change? An ingenious line of analysis suggests there might be."

The relativistic spacetime introduced by Minkowski is based on two postulates:

1. The principle of relativity.

2. The principle of constancy of the speed of light (the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source).

So if there is "something special in the nature of the relativistic spacetime that supports the illusory character of change", this can only be the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source. Accordingly, those Einsteinians who reject the illusory nature of time implied in Minkowski's concept (the consequence) would also have to reject Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (the assumption). That is, one would have to admit that Einstein should not have "resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d
p/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."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 27, 2011 @ 18:37 GMT
John Norton rebukes Michio Kaku for "misstating the physics". Kaku teaches that Einstein "found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved". Norton teaches that Maxwell's theory "allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

John Norton: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory:

Kaku: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved."

Norton again: This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Michio Kaku rebukes crackpots for "denouncing Einstein's theory of relativity for years":

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240531119037036
04576588662498620624.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Michio Kaku: "Einstein wrong? Impossible! (...) Of course, crackpots have been denouncing Einstein's theory of relativity for years. (...) Cracking the light barrier violated the core of Einstein's theory. According to relativity, as you approach the speed of light, time slows down, you get heavier, and you also get flatter (all of which have been measured in the lab). But if you go faster than light, then the impossible happens. Time goes backward. You are lighter than nothing, and you have negative width. Since this is ridiculous, you cannot go faster than light, said Einstein."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 17:25 GMT
http://hiltonratcliffe.com/blog/?p=66

Hilton Ratcliffe: "A few years ago, I had the great privilege of sharing a supper table with some of the finest scientific minds of my era. Directly opposite me sat Professor Huseyin Yilmaz, formerly of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton University, a hallowed and ivy-decked place where Albert Einstein had spent his later, introspective...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 14:40 GMT
"Top experts" putting on life jackets and ready to leave the sinking ship (one of them will become "the next Einstein who can make sense out of it all"):

http://bigthink.com/ideas/40441

BIG THINK A forum where top experts explore the big ideas and core skills defining the 21st century

Michio Kaku: "For these reasons, Einstein stated that you cannot go faster than the speed of light. This also affects general relativity, which is the foundation of cosmology, since (for small distances) general relativity reduces down to special relativity. Hence, both are wrong if the recent CERN experiments are correct. Not only is cosmology, nuclear physics, atomic physics, laser physics, etc. all in doubt, but also the fundamental theories of particle physics are also thrown in doubt. The Standard Model of particle physics (containing quarks, electrons, neutrinos, etc). is also based on relativity and would also mean that string theory, my field, may also be wrong. String theory has relativity built-in from the start and the lowest octave of string contains the entire general theory of relativity. So you can see why physicists are breaking out in a cold sweat contemplating the demise of relativity. Not only will all textbooks have to rewritten but we will also have to recalibrate all our physics calculations, not to mention all of our theories of both nuclear, atomic physics and cosmology. What a headache! So, I think most physicists are holding their breath, wishing that the recent CERN experiment is shown to be flawed and something of a false alarm. However, there is the slim chance that the result holds up. Then relativity may fall and we will have to await the coming of the next Einstein who can make sense out of it all -- In retrospect however, This is How Science is Done."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Ray Munroe replied on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 15:08 GMT
Dear Pentcho,

But shouldn't we choose to embrace change?

Einstein's Theory of Relativity has seemed consistent with nature for about a Century now. I don't think that anyone is going to throw ALL of Einstein's ideas into the trash. We still teach Newtonion dynamics in College...

What should we expect to trump Relativistic Gravity, Lorentz Invariance, and CPT Symmetry? (Wait - didn't the 2nd Law of Thermo already trump T symmetry, and the Weak force already trumped CP Symmetry?)

If OPERA's results are accurate, I expect it to be evidence for either 1) a weakly-coupled Quantum Gravity, and/ or 2) new weakly-coupled implications and details for a TOE.

That is not necessarily a bad thing.

Have Fun!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Sep. 30, 2011 @ 15:30 GMT
This is a DEDUCTIVE theory, Ray. Unlike today's Einsteinians, Einstein knew what that meant:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0702/0702166.pdf

"I
f the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false." - Albert E. Einstein

Regards, Pentcho

Ray Munroe wrote: "Dear Pentcho, But shouldn't we choose to embrace change? Einstein's Theory of Relativity has seemed consistent with nature for about a Century now. I don't think that anyone is going to throw ALL of Einstein's ideas into the trash. We still teach Newtonion dynamics in College... What should we expect to trump Relativistic Gravity, Lorentz Invariance, and CPT Symmetry? (Wait - didn't the 2nd Law of Thermo already trump T symmetry, and the Weak force already trumped CP Symmetry?) If OPERA's results are accurate, I expect it to be evidence for either 1) a weakly-coupled Quantum Gravity, and/ or 2) new weakly-coupled implications and details for a TOE. That is not necessarily a bad thing. Have Fun!"

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 22:16 GMT
Just watched the complete David Eagleman on choice.

This is a really fascinating video. Which reinforces some of what I have been saying about processing time of the observer and how the present is not The uni-temporal Now in which physical interactions and causality are occurring. He did say that human perception lags behind the present but of course that is the ambiguity of temporal language rearing its ugly head. Because the experience of the observer is what we regard as the present not the "not yet experienced" happenings that are occurring simultaneously to the temporally delayed experience. I have already posted some comment on the speed of passage of time in dangerous situations on the setting time aright thread.

David Wallace video.

It is making an assumption about what is happening based upon of the assumption of the state of a hypothetical very early universe. (Which has come from assumptions about universal expansion, an assumption from red shift, leading to the idea of a big bang arising from those prior assumption.) David Wallace says here -it is necessary to have something to give time asymmetry "We are going to declare by fiat that the early universe was in a very low entropy state...."and then talks about increasing entropy. He then said "There is clearly something right about that." ?? Why? That is clearly unreasonable and an error.I don't think entropy and equilibrium are the right way of trying to deal with the problem. It seems to me that Entropy is a "red herring".

He asks -Are the equations governing the micro physical world asymmetric? He says that idea is interesting well motivated, but wrong, and he said "I am going to put that aside." That is in my opinion the greatest error. He also did not explain why it is interesting , well motivated but WRONG.

His final section was on working out the temporal dynamics from the equations that are used in physics, and assumptions about the early universe. The assumptions are based upon current physics ideas, used to explain the early universe and are then being used to try to work out what current physics ideas should be. It a flawed approach, with respect.

Instead we might look at what is occurring in those processes, abundant within biology, that are not time reversible. An organism can function because of the formation of ATP and its breakdown to ADP. It could not function with that process going in reverse. That is a simple chemical process involving position of atoms and subatomic particles. A micro process but with a big macro affect.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 28, 2011 @ 23:21 GMT
To clarify: In the cells the release of energy is essential for other chemical processes, those other chemical processes could not occur if there was extraction of energy rather than supply. The organism also makes ATP for energy transport, it could not function by transporting an energy sink. It would be like driving a car that un-burns petrol.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 1, 2011 @ 11:00 GMT
Look- these were really interesting talks. I think it has been a privilege to have them shared here. It would be nice to hear other people's opinions on the talks themselves.

I think the David Eagleman one gives some very interesting food for thought on choice, which has relevance to free will and determinism.

The David Wallace is also interesting. For me, as an insight into how others are thinking very differently about similar problems. It also dissatisfied me for a number of reasons but I would be interested to hear from others who think that his analysis was reasonable, and that working forward from a hypothesised proto universe is a useful way to progress understanding. He obviously isn't alone in thinking that way.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 1, 2011 @ 19:40 GMT
David Eagleman's talk has a lot of interesting stuff about perception of time which is relevant to relativity. When an observer observes something to be.It is interesting that the detector (person)itself can impose temporal order and adjusts separation and sequence and is not just a passive receptor. If a human observer is used in a physics example it is assumed to to be just a passive receptor of the data. No allowance is made in the physics calculation for what happens receiver end. Which has to be as relevant as what is happening source end and during transmission. It has been overlooked. Which would make calculations just using relativity inaccurate. The processing delay and temporal order, or separation adjustments performed by the receiver organism or device ought to be taken into account too.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 01:55 GMT
Re. Video of bioengineer Malcolm MacIver.

Fascinating creatures and fascinating research.Second half of the video the automatic walker was really interesting to me.

The point about taking into consideration the whole body was important. Not only the mechanical function though, as mentioned in the video. The complex function of the sensory organs is often overlooked and emphasis is put upon the brain function, when a lot of processing of data is actually conducted by the sensory organs prior to the brain getting in on the act.

Interesting definition of consciousness given.

"Consciousness is the operation of the plan executing mechanism enabling behavior to be driven by plans rather than immediate environmental contingencies. Bruce Bridgeman 1992"

Also discussion of the development of the ability to make choices (rather than just react) that will have a positive selection pressure. As a result of increased sensory capability upon leaving the water. Relevant to the question of determinism/non determinism in physics. To be compatible with this biological observation there must be at least partial nondeterminism in the Object universe. With no choice there could be no preference for the decision giving likelihood of best outcome. Behavior when option are available would seem random rather than chosen for likelihood of best outcome.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Sep. 29, 2011 @ 02:11 GMT
If it was fully determined all of the correct decisions, and mistakes too, could have decided in that hypothetical tiny amount of time when the singularity became an eternal fully existing universe spread over space-time. But I'm pretty sure the explosion of a zero dimensional point into an infinite universe hasn't decided what colour shirt I'm going to wear next Tuesday and which breadcrumb that sparrow will eat first. It is just too fantastic.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 1, 2011 @ 04:22 GMT
In a gravitational field, THE SPEED OF LIGHT VARIES EXACTLY AS THE SPEED OF CANNONBALLS DOES:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNWngpw2vr0

Brian Cox: "Light falls at the same rate in a gravitational field as everything else."

http://membres.multimania.fr/juvastro/calculs/einstein
.pdf

"Le principe d'équivalence, un des fondements de base de la relativité générale prédit que dans un champ gravitationnel, la lumière tombe comme tout corps matériel selon l'acceleration de la pesanteur."

By applying the equivalence principle one easily deduces that, even in the absence of a gravitational field, THE SPEED OF LIGHT VARIES EXACTLY AS THE SPEED OF CANNONBALLS DOES. In other words, Einstein should not have "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":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d
p/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."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 1, 2011 @ 08:30 GMT
Time to remember Halton Arp:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mf5y6PJR5lE

Halton Arp Victim Of Rational Scientific Society

In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the much hated "intrinsic redshift" discovered by Halton Arp has nothing to do with the "gravitational redshift" gloriously confirming Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/09/galaxies-einstein-
relativity/

"The researchers, led by Radek Wojtak of the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen, set out to test a classic prediction of general relativity: that light will lose energy as it is escaping a gravitational field. The stronger the field, the greater the energy loss suffered by the light. As a result, photons emitted from the center of a galaxy cluster - a massive object containing thousands of galaxies - should lose more energy than photons coming from the edge of the cluster because gravity is strongest in the center. And so, light emerging from the center should become longer in wavelength than light coming from the edges, shifting toward the red end of the light spectrum. The effect is known as gravitational redshifting. Wojtak and his colleagues knew that measuring gravitational redshifting within a single galaxy cluster would be difficult because the effect is very small and needs to be teased apart from the redshifting caused by the orbital velocity of individual galaxies within the cluster and the redshifting caused by the expansion of the universe. The researchers approached the problem by averaging data collected from 8000 galaxy clusters by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The hope was to detect gravitational redshift "by studying the properties of the redshift distribution of galaxies in clusters rather than by looking at redshifts of individual galaxies separately," Wojtak explains. Sure enough, the researchers found that the light from the clusters was redshifted in proportion to the distance from the center of the cluster, as predicted by general relativity. "We could measure small differences in the redshift of the galaxies and see that the light from galaxies in the middle of a cluster had to 'crawl' out through the gravitational field, while it was easier for the light from the outlying galaxies to emerge," Wojtak says. The findings appear online today in Nature."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 1, 2011 @ 19:23 GMT
What happened to panicky cosmologists? There was a nice documentary recently of which only a small piece seems to have survived:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz6u5f_7jvk&feature=
related

"Is Everything We Know About The Universe Wrong"

I think the time is ripe for considering the following hypothesis:

Everything we know about the universe is wrong because, in applying the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

we have wrongly assumed that the frequency and the wavelength vary while the speed of light remains constant. The speed of light does vary with the gravitational potential (this is a prediction of both Newton's emission theory of light and general relativity) and, most probably, it gradually decreases as photons travel through "empty" space ("tired light" is the euphemism).

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 4, 2011 @ 15:09 GMT
Rediscovering Hubble's Law?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/47392

"The 2011 Nobel Prize for Physics has been awarded to Saul Perlmutter from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, US, Adam Riess at Johns Hopkins University, in Baltimore, and Brian Schmidt from the Australian National University, Weston Creek, "for the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe through observations of distant supernovae". (...) In 1987 physicists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California at Berkeley initiated the Supernova Cosmology Project (SCP) to hunt for certain distant exploding stars, known as Type Ia supernovae. They hoped to use these stars to calculate, among other things, the rate at which the expansion of the universe was slowing down. (...) In 1998, after years of observations, two rival groups of supernova hunters - the High-Z Supernovae Search Team led by Schmidt and Riess and the SCP led by Perlmutter - came to the conclusion that the cosmic expansion is actually accelerating and not slowing under the influence of gravity as might be expected."

Why did they expect the expansion of the universe to slow down? If there is expansion (I think there isn't), Hubble's redshift should have made them expect it to accelerate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_c
osmos

"In 1929, American astronomer Edwin Hubble studied the relative velocities of a number of comparatively far-away galaxies and compared the information obtained from this, with estimates of the galaxies' distance from Earth. He found that more distant galaxies appeared to be moving away from the Earth at a faster rate than closer galaxies. This fact became known as Hubble's Law."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 3, 2011 @ 14:33 GMT
Einsteiniana teaches: The youthfulness of the travelling twin has nothing to do with the acceleration she has suffered:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/gwgPa
rtI_SpecialRelativity2010.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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Oct. 5, 2011 @ 17:16 GMT
Pentcho,

The irony here is the only applicable expression of relativistic effects on clocks is the opposite. It is the clocks on GPS satellites which record a faster rate, because gravity is equivalent to acceleration, so the clocks on earth are being slowed by being in a gravity field.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 6, 2011 @ 08:38 GMT
That sounds so simple, it must be true

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

UK Poetry Day replied on Oct. 6, 2011 @ 08:48 GMT
*The Cryptid Tales Of Tailormaneinafog (Part 1)*

Spirals of spirals linked

in an emitting dynamic

circuit decribes the

electrical force and

magnetic force

at right angles

to it.

The threeness of quarks

is the simplest circuit therein.

Trade-offs between

spirals of spirals

leads to flowers

of efficiency,

rocks and water

we are all in.

Tread the rumor mill of our minds

but beware the spinpools..

gravity spiral concatenations

into slinky tubes,

the feed of feeds of our minds

AL

attachments: UKPoetryDay.jpg, UKPoetryDay2.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 5, 2011 @ 12:39 GMT
If distant supernovae are farther away than one would expect based on the LINEAR increase of red shift with distance, this can be explained on the assumption that, as the photon travels through "empty" space (in a STATIC universe), it loses speed in much the same way that a golf ball loses speed due to the resistance of the air:

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format=application%2Fpdf&id
entifier=oai%3AarXiv.org%3A0706.2885

An Alternative Explanation for Cosmological Redshift, David Schuster, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Denver

"Current models of the intergalactic medium contend that it has mass density on the order of 10^(-27) kg/m^3. While it is true that this equates to approximately one atom of neutral Hydrogen per cubic meter, averaging over cosmological distances, it is reasonable to consider the IGM a super-low density fluid. (...) Obviously, as the density of the intervening medium increases, so does the number of interactions and, consequently, so does the travel time of the light. This is the effect seen in a dense material like calcite where there are so many interactions that THE LIGHT SLOWS DOWN appreciably in a short distance. (...) Assuming the interaction cross-section to correspond to the Bohr radius. This means that a photon will, on average, have an interaction and, accordingly, a characteristic delay every 37600 light years. This is using the minimum particle density in intergalactic space, which can vary widely up to approximately 1000 particles/m^3 in areas of particularly high density."

On this analogy the resistive force (Fr) is proportional to the the velocity of the photon (V):

Fr = - KV

That is, the speed of light decreases in accordance with the equation:

dV/dt = - K'V

Clearly, at the end of a very long journey of photons (coming from a very distant object), the contribution to the redshift is much smaller than the contribution at the beginning of the journey. Light coming from nearer objects is less subject to this difference, that is, the increase of the redshift with distance is closer to LINEAR.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

John Merryman replied on Oct. 5, 2011 @ 17:18 GMT
Pentcho,

Here is another possible explanation:

http://www.fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/2008C
Christov_WaveMotion_45_154_EvolutionWavePackets.pdf


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 5, 2011 @ 20:41 GMT
The most reasonable question in cosmology:

http://www.sciscoop.com/2008-10-30-41323-484.html

"Shine a light through a piece of glass, a swimming pool or any other medium and it slows down ever so slightly, it's why a plunged part way into the surface of a pool appears to be bent. So, what about the space in between those distant astronomical objects and our earthly telescopes? COULDN'T IT BE THAT THE SUPPOSED VACUUM OF SPACE IS ACTING AS AN INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT like some cosmic swimming pool?"

So far phrases like "TO LOWER THE SPEED OF LIGHT" have been actuating absolute crimestop:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 6, 2011 @ 17:34 GMT
How can an intelligent person put up with the idiotic transition from the original "Doppler" interpretation of the Hubble redshift to the modern universe-expansion-stretches-the-wavelength interpretation? Cosmologists, do all of you teach the following wisdom:

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=
278

"In both cases, the light emitted by one body and received by...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Oct. 5, 2011 @ 13:43 GMT
Pentcho,

You're very impressive, and thank you for your contributions, but I'm still not 100$ whether you're a 'graviton man' or not. If so, what shape are they and where did they come from to be that shape?

Alan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Parry wrote on Oct. 6, 2011 @ 21:03 GMT
New look at the pole -barn paradox.

I know there has already been a lot of discussion of this paradox recently but I thought this (link above) gave a visually striking explanation that makes clear how the observers can perceive the pole differently and that the observed pole is constructed from received sensory data and is not the material of the object itself.

Since at least one of the videos was concerned with human perception I thought it would be appropriate to post it here.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Oct. 6, 2011 @ 22:00 GMT
When I commented on the barn-pole discussion, I did not view it as a paradox. That concern is for those who think that special relativity applies to the problem. Yet, I said that there would be a period of time when the pole was completely within the barn. In my opinion, this is what all observers would see. In my opinion, this is what would physically occur.

There was one assumption that I made that was not spelled out in the example. That assumption was: Since the stationary object was referred to as a barn, I assumed it was on and was stationary with respect to the surface of the Earth. Because the barn is stationary on the surface of the Earth, it will not change size.

The approaching pole observer, due to their speed relative to the Earth, will view the barn as enlarging. The barn does not change size. However, the pole does physically shorten. That is my position on this example from my point of view based upon my own work. This gives some indication as to why I refer to relativity type effects instead of realtivity effects.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 6, 2011 @ 22:54 GMT
When Polly looks the pole object could have just transitioned to emitting a different wavelength of EM from the one just received by Polly. So the actual pole object is not the colour seen by Polly or the multicoloured pole but an object emitting a wavelength of EM that would be interpreted as a different single hue by an observer..

As the observed time and the observed spatial content is produced by the observer from the received data, neither perceived time nor observed content of space and their spatial relationships can be the foundational reality of -objects- and their relationships unobserved.

Which is why I was thinking along these lines. SEQUENCE, independent of observed time, and relationships, SEPARATION, ORIENTATION, PATTERN, SCALE, independent of an imposed space-time frame of reference might be usefully used with concepts SUBSTANCE, QUANTITY and ALTERATION for constructing a model giving some comprehension of what is occurring..I'll think about it some more.

It is the relationships that determine the forces that act to alter or sustain arrangement across a sequence of iterations. Giving unidirectional causality..[related to one way passage of time] and ACTUALISATION from what is prior to MANIFESTATION formed by the observer from sensory data. Giving both the coming into being of an unwritten future (A)...[related to nondeterminism and free will] -and- the generation of a pre-written future that will be observed later on (M)..[related to relativity and non simultaneity].

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Oct. 6, 2011 @ 23:02 GMT
James,

have you looked at the colorful illustrated explanation on the link? I think it makes it far clearer than just a verbal description or mathematics.I think it is very good and worth a look, even if you are convinced from your own work that the pole object has shrunk and could be captured in the barn.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


BBC4 'What if everything we knew about the universe was wrong'.. wrote on Oct. 7, 2011 @ 08:48 GMT
Great programme last night. My essay describing the creation of opossing mega-structures solves all the enigmas:

(i) *Dark Flow* is due to the irregular implosion of mega-structures which resulted in the big bang.

(ii) *Dark Energy* is due to the 4D gravity wraparound destiny during the build-up phase.

(iii) *Dark Matter* is better understood as the galactic 'spingravity' - stars further out are offset by being closer to the plane of rotation. Orbital resonance further unifies the galaxy into an evenly moving disk.

(iv) *Standard Model of Cosmology* is better understood as being too simplistic in it's most basic assumptions, a.k.a Newton's isotropic first principle. Reality is better explained by an Archimedes screw model for the concept of force acting at a distance, which gives anisotropic gravity emission.

Al

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 8, 2011 @ 09:48 GMT
The story of life

attachments: TheStoryOfLife.jpg

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 9, 2011 @ 19:21 GMT
Intrinsic redshift:

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/09/relativ
ity-and-dark-matter-survive-a-redshif-test.ars

"Light emitted by distant objects rarely makes it to Earth at the same wavelength that it started out at. The fabric of the Universe is expanding, which causes a redshift. Most objects are also moving relative to the Earth, which adds a Doppler shift to the light....

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 10, 2011 @ 20:02 GMT
The only reason behind Dark Energy:

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."

http://www.laprovence.com/article/a-la-une/marseille-
au-coeur-du-cote-obscur

"Dark Vador peut...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 11, 2011 @ 06:00 GMT
Dark energy and Nobel prize:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-1
011-lemonick-einstein-20111011,0,5744065.story

"The other question: What is this antigravity force, anyway? Theoretical physicists call it dark energy, but do they have ideas about what it actually is, how it works? Plenty, but are they convincing? "Well, no," Riess said in a telephone interview last week. "They really aren't." Another Nobel awaits whoever figures that one out."

Note that no Nobel awaits those who, appalled at the dark idiocy, choose the reasonable explanation Hubble himself had chosen:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/w6777w07xn737590/
fulltext.pdf

Misconceptions about the Hubble recession law, Wilfred H. Sorrell, Astrophys Space Sci: "Reber (1982) pointed out that Hubble himself was never an advocate for the expanding universe idea. Indeed, it was Hubble who personally thought that a model universe based on the tired-light hypothesis is more simple and less irrational than a model universe based on an expanding spacetime geometry (...) ...any photon gradually loses its energy while traveling over a large distance in the vast space of the universe."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,757145,00.h
tml

Monday, Dec. 14, 1936: "Other causes for the redshift were suggested, such as cosmic dust or a change in the nature of light over great stretches of space. Two years ago Dr. Hubble admitted that the expanding universe might be an illusion, but implied that this was a cautious and colorless view. Last week it was apparent that he had shifted his position even further away from a literal interpretation of the redshift, that he now regards the expanding universe as more improbable than a non-expanding one."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 11, 2011 @ 09:18 GMT
Nice quotes Pentcho, but a *wraparound universe* isn't included in the Standard Model Of Cosmology, which is a possible explanation for Dark Energy. Are you mute on this point too?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 9, 2011 @ 23:20 GMT
A fundamental and thorough inclusion, involvement, and understanding of instantaneity is required in any final and unified understanding of physics in general. This requires, for starters, a space that is both (and equally) invisible and visible. There is no true and fundamental quantum gravity apart from this (and instantaneity).

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 11, 2011 @ 14:23 GMT
A nice metaphor characterizing not only special relativity but theoretical physics as a whole:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8qx7sc1r

"S
pecial relativity is no different to declaring that the apparent dwindling size of a departing train and the lower pitch of its whistle are due to a real shrinking of space on the train and slowing of its clocks. We know from experience that isn't true. The farce must eventually play out like the cartoon character walking off the edge of a cliff and not falling until the realization dawns that there is no support. But how long must we wait? We are swiftly approaching the centennial of the big bang. The suspense has become tedious and it is costing us dearly. Some people are getting angry."

In 1954 Einstein predicted the off-the-edge-of-a-cliff-and-not-falling situation:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d
7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.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."

Bryan Wallace, the martyr, indicated the ultimate saboteur: Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

The Farce of Physics, Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c plus v."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 15, 2011 @ 16:26 GMT
Sane voices in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?
id=2011-nobel-prize-in-physics-11-10-04

Frank Atkinson (comment 6): "I warmly applaud the accurate observatonal work of the prize winners - on supernovae. However, the Prize was awarded on the grounds of the work showing that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate but this is merely conjectue based on the prior guess that the Universe is actually expanding. It seems reasonable to expect the elimination of prior guesswork before handing out prestigious Prizes. All the facts relied on for an expanding Universe have alternatie explanations. For example we know the redshift is not due to the Doppler effect. or we would have to be at the centre of the Universe. Problematically, the Doppler effect is the only proved redshift effect caused by motion, others are guesswork. However, a model called the cosmological redshift, has been fabricated, to make the redshift be a measure of a notional expansion. This relies on the expansion being produced by space itself stretching and pushing galaxies apart. The redshift is then said to be caused by the expanding space, stretching the wavelength of light as it passes through it. There is no known method for either space to stretch and expand or for it to stretch light as it passes through it. This model is pure metaphysical speculation."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 15, 2011 @ 18:01 GMT
Pentcho,

Could you please explain why you are calling Einstein's SR is schizophrenic? I know that Cantor was indeed mentally ill while his idea to count up to infinity and beyond was nonetheless accepted, declared genial, and made the putative basis of mathematics.

Tom called me an relativity doubter. After believing in Einstein's extraordinary cleverness, I doubted indeed for a while. However, even if SR looks schizophrenic to me, Einstein himself was certainly mentally pretty robust. If we have reason to deal with persons involved we should perhaps focus on those who made the idols and for what reasons. Did they still accept SR when they were unbiased and aware of all new experimental results including Shtyrkov's?

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 16, 2011 @ 19:47 GMT
Eckard, why physics is schizophrenic:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care
/dp/0306817586

Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."

Both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the fact that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer:

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/XML/db/c
sphysique/metadata/LOM_CSP_relat.xml

Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/
0553380168

Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

The coexistence of the contradictory texts in the physics literature, the lack of any discussion and the successful career of all the authors clearly show that physics is schizophrenic.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Oct. 11, 2011 @ 14:27 GMT
Let's hope it won't take too long then.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 11, 2011 @ 19:37 GMT
Clever relativists don't believe in relativity any longer but would never admit that for the following simple reason: "Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier":

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a9
09857880

Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox", Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 12, 2011 @ 12:59 GMT
Prof Brian Cox of the UK may be able to break that code though. He has the advantage of having made a BBC TV series with the title "What On Earth Is Wrong With Gravity?" screened a few years ago or so. In one episode I remember with distinct clarity him saying that the only thing it can be, if a real enigma, is that gravity is stronger towards the equator, but he was defuddled as to what could be the reason. The 'standard model' appeared to be just *too* good. I have a solution though, one which only requires the build-up of comets around the equatorial plane which collect around the outside of one of the Earth's inner cores. These particular comets are 'dark matter' comets, which can have a much higher gravitational pull based on a non-Newtonian model of the smallest particle.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Oct. 13, 2011 @ 08:56 GMT
Pentcho,

Do you agree that this is a possiblity at least?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 14:20 GMT
Schizophrenia: The youthfulness of the travelling twin both has nothing to do with the acceleration she has suffered and is entirely caused by the acceleration she has suffered:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibb
ons/gwgPartI_SpecialRelativity2010.pdf

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 17, 2011 @ 20:40 GMT
Blatant fudge and masterstroke in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.decodedscience.com/einsteins-biggest-blunde
r-and-the-2011-nobel-prize-in-physics/4070

Paul A. Heckert, professor of physics and astronomy at Western Carolina University: "Einstein therefore forced his theory to conform to his preconceived ideas about the universe. To keep general relativity from predicting either an expanding or collapsing universe, Einstein added a cosmological constant to the general relativity equations. There was absolutely no experimental or observational justification for the existence of this cosmological constant. Einstein's cosmological constant was a blatant fudge to force his theory to conform to his conception of a static universe. (...) Einstein modified general relativity by removing the cosmological constant and returning the equations to their original form. To Einstein's credit he admitted his error and called the cosmological constant his biggest blunder. (...) One possible solution is Einstein's cosmological constant. If cosmologists put the cosmological constant back into Einstein's general relativity equations, then general relativity equations can predict that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The value of the cosmological constant would have to be different than the value Einstein originally used to force the theory to predict a static universe. The idea basic is however the same. Was Einstein's biggest blunder actually a masterstroke?"

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 17:22 GMT
Mirth in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_
content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576

John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."

Einstein's 1954 confession: "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."

John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha, hm, ha ha ha."

Stachel could have referred to Walter Ritz but he did not because Ritz is an unperson in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908l.htm

Walther Ritz (1908): "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems possible to me, is that (...) the motion of light is a relative motion like all the others, that only relative velocities play a role in the laws of nature; and finally that we should renounce use of (...) the notion of field..."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-4

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 18, 2011 @ 20:22 GMT
Eckard,

More symptoms of schizophrenic science:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Cont
emporary-Philosophy/dp/0415701740

Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy), Craig Callender et al: "Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory, however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical."

Now Callender et al wrote this but did not find it profitable to inform the reader which postulate - the principle of relativity or the principle of constancy of the speed of light - is false. The book is probably a bestseller and yet of all the readers not one could think of a reason why Callender et al should indicate the false postulate. To quote Clifford Truesdell, this is "a prime example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds".

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Eckard Blumschein wrote on Oct. 19, 2011 @ 08:25 GMT
Pentcho,

Routledge is perhaps not a tabloid science publisher, and I consider Ritz even more inappropriate for a mirth than the also rather tragic father and husband Einstein who was unemployed for years, did certainly not enjoy his first job, was not told the truth before he signed for an atomic bomb, and had reason to question his theories.

What about Callender, for what reason does he avoid calling a spade a spade?

What about photons, phonons, and other virtual particles, none of the essays from last FQXi contest I read gave to me a plausible and comprehensive elucidation. Maybe, some points I made were justified. While I did not yet deal with Einstein's "genial" split between solids as described by Newtonian mechanics and fields as described by Huygens and Maxwell, I stumbled about some related inconsistencies.

It might be madness of the crowd if OPERA manages to attract doubters in Einstein's putative solidification of wave by means of two mutually contradicting postulates on the expense of abandoning the notion of absolute simultaneity. On the other hand, apparently nobody seriously dealt with Shtyrkov's ether drift result and with Zeh's NoDiscreteness.pdf.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 19, 2011 @ 18:21 GMT
Eckard wrote: "What about Callender, for what reason does he avoid calling a spade a spade?"

For the same reason for which poor "tired light" cosmologists would not even think of referring to "photons losing energy" as "photons losing speed". "Photons losing energy" is detrimental but the heretic could still survive. "Photons losing speed" is life ruining.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Oct. 19, 2011 @ 20:20 GMT
Pentcho, You quoted from Routledge:"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy), Craig Callender et al: "Unfortunately for Einstein's Special Theory, however, its epistemological and ontological assumptions are now seen to be questionable, unjustified, false, perhaps even illogical. (...) It is remarkable that the Special Theory has thus far managed to survive largely unscathed the collapse of its essential epistemological underpinnings. One wonders how this can be so. (...) Physicists would be at a loss as to how to proceed if they rejected the Special Theory as unjustified, since they (for the most part) believe that this would require them to reject QFT. In the light of this dependence on Special Relativity, physicists are not likely to abandon it unless it is observationally disconfirmed and there is an observationally adequate theory available to replace it. In fact, there is a theory that is not merely observationally equivalent to the Special Theory, but also observationally superior to it, namely Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian theory. Lorentz's theory is regarded by many physicists who have studied Lorentzian theory, such as J.S. Bell, to be observationally equivalent to the Special Theory. However a Lorentzian or neo-Lorentzian theory is, in fact, observationally superior to the Special Theory (a fact that Bell, surprisingly, did not point out), since a Lorentzian theory, in contrast to the Special Theory, is consistent with the relations of absolute, instantaneous simultaneity...".

It is unbelievable to me that Craig Callender was not aware of experimental evidence for the existence of an ether making even length contraction useless.

Well, uttering criticism of a belief can be life ruining. However, I would like to not equate consequent thinking with imprudent outing.

Incidentally, if a photon is a quantum of energy then it cannot lose energy.

Regards,

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 16:20 GMT
Time distortion in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111020024
718.htm

"One of the counterintuitive predictions of Einstein's general relativity is that gravity distorts the flow of time. The theory predicts that clocks tick slower near a massive body and tick faster the further they are away from the mass. This effect results in a so-called "twin paradox": if one twin moves out to live at a higher altitude, he will age faster than the other twin who remains on the ground. This effect has been precisely verified in classical experiments..."

Clocks do not tick slower near a massive body; rather, all clocks - nearby and distant - go at the same rate. "Classical experiments" have measured the gravitational redshift which "does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Bane
sh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

What befalls light signals in the presence of gravitation? They accelerate of course, in accordance with both Newton's emission theory of light and Einstein's general relativity (the latter predicts that photons accelerate two times faster than all other objects).

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 18:25 GMT
Clever Einsteinians know that time is not distorted by gravity:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-w
hat-makes-the-universe-tick.html

"It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter."

Elsewhere Norton would sincerely claim that time IS distorted by gravity - Orwell calls this kind of split personality "doublethink":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 10:40 GMT
Pentcho

Time is not distorted by gravity, but timing might be. In so far as gravity is a force which causes changing momentum which causes length alteration. Supposedly. I presume that a fundamental disturbance in atomic/sub-atomic structure (albeit at very high speeds to have any effect)can cause variations to any given sequence of change, than that which would otherwise have been the case, had the matter remained in its 'equilibrium' state.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Alan Lowey replied on Oct. 21, 2011 @ 11:09 GMT
Paul,

A pendulum will slow down in a decreasing gravitational field, which is intuitive. So why is an atomic clock slowing in the same decreasing field considered counter-intuitive?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 17:16 GMT
Bodily experience is inseparable from the fundamental and complete understanding and description of the laws and force/energy of physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 17:21 GMT
How is thought fundamentally and generally integrated with (and interactive with) sensory experience in general?

Do you all understand that this is THE question regarding unifying physics accurately and fundamentally?

The extensiveness of thought is necessarily tied to the extensiveness of physical description and experience.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 17:43 GMT
What about vision beginning and ending with gravity and inertia. This doesn't matter? The key is space that is equally (and both) invisible and visible.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Oct. 20, 2011 @ 17:45 GMT
I love how the big and fundamental questions are avoided at this forum.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 16:11 GMT
Einsteiniana: The Sirius B fraud:

http://www.oxfordreference.com/pages/Sample_Entries__s
ample_01

From A Dictionary of Scientists: "In 1915 Einstein, while completing his 1916 paper on General Relativity, calculated Mercury's perihelion precession on the basis of his own theory and found that, without making any extra assumptions, the missing 43" were accounted for. The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Oct. 31, 2011 @ 18:07 GMT
The Mercury's perihelion precession fraud:

http://www.oxfordreference.com/pages/Sample_Entries__s
ample_01

From A Dictionary of Scientists: "In 1915 Einstein, while completing his 1916 paper on General Relativity, calculated Mercury's perihelion precession on the basis of his own theory and found that, WITHOUT MAKING ANY EXTRA ASSUMPTIONS, the missing 43" were accounted for. The...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 14:33 GMT
The muon lifetime fraud (time dilation gloriously confirmed):

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/389/muon/muon-rutgers.p
df

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..."

A similar wisdom:

In order to measure the lifetime of a driver at rest, one must observe a car coming to a sudden stop into a wall. Lifetimes of moving drivers are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer...

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 1, 2011 @ 18:35 GMT
An attempt at demythologization. Juxtapose the following texts:

http://booklists.narod.ru/P_Physics/PQft_Quantum_field
_theory/PQed_Quantum_electrodynamics/Feynman_R.P._QED__the_s
trange_theory_of_light_and_matter__Princeton__1985__T__163s_
.1.htm

Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you were probably told something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh
-Hoffmann/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."

Einsteinians? Any thoughts? No thoughts:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 07:16 GMT
The Pound-Rebka experiment fraud:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_exper
iment

"The Pound-Rebka experiment is a well known experiment to test Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. It was proposed by Robert Pound and his graduate student Glen A. Rebka Jr. in 1959, and was the last of the classical tests of general relativity to be verified (in the same year). It is a gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity. (...) When the photon travels through a gravitational field, its frequency and therefore its energy will change due to the gravitational redshift."

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%
20Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF

David Morin (p. 4): "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. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy."

QUESTION: If, in a gravitational field, the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light, would Pound and Rebka have measured the same "frequency shift of gh/c^2"? It is easy to show that the answer is an unambiguous yes (Einsteinians occasionally admit that). How then can the Pound-Rebka experiment be "the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity"?

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 09:15 GMT
Pentcho

Although Einstein did talk about clocks actually running slower/quicker, one has to be careful about this. If one reads the whole of his theory, it becomes obvious that this was just a daft explanation of some underlying effect. In other words, proving that this does not happen, does not invalidate the theory. An analogy would be when a Dr understands the pathology of a disease but explains the symptoms incorrectly.

Now, one of the underlying assumptions is that matter is affected dimensionally by a force which also causes a change in momentum. In other words, when matter is changing momentum, its dimension is changing, and it is a force (gravitation) that is causing this. If this is indeed ocurring, then the timing of events will be out, unless this effect is factored into calculations. But he also decided to depict the consequential effect on timing by considering the devices that we use to effect timing. Clocks are matter, they will therefore contract/expand, this will have an effect on their 'tick-tock' rate. This is nonsense. Assuming there is contraction/expansion then the idea that it will translate in every timing device to the same change in the frequency of running of that device is daft. But that is not the reason timing is not quite what we expect it to be, it is because, according to Einsten, we live in a somewhat amorphous world. The exlanation was nonsense, not necessarily the underlying assumption.

Furthermore, leaving aside any length alteration, there is an optical illusion concerned with frequency and movement, it is as follows:

Light is the information medium in an experience based on sight. As light travels, there is a delay between the existence of a state and its perception. That delay will vary as a function of the individual spaces involved, and the speed with which the light travelled in each experience. Whilst the perceived order of sequence will never vary, assuming that light has a reasonable degree of constancy of movement (ie is not fundamentally erratic).

The perceived rate of change of a sequence will remain the same, so long as the on-going relative spatial position remains constant amongst everything involved. Because, while the value of the delay is different depending on each individual space, it remains constant. However, when relative individual space is altering, then the perceived rate of change alters, because the delay is ever increasing (or decreasing) at a rate which depends on the rate at which individual spaces are altering. It is a perceptual illusion. The intrinsic rate of change (duration, in reality) in the sequence being experienced does not alter, either in order to create this effect, or as a consequence of this effect being realised.

All this does not imply Einstein was correct, either a) logically B0 specifically, ie with his quantification of the logic. But proving a poor explanation as poor does not invalidate the theory.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 14:33 GMT
The Michelson-Morley experiment fraud:

Ninety-nine percent of Einsteinians fiercely teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment has gloriously confirmed Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586


Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6328514962912264988
#

Caltech: The Mechanical Universe - 42 - The Lorentz Transformation: "They [Michelson and Morley] found exactly what they weren't looking for. The interferometer showed that, regardless of the motion of the observer, the speed of light is the same."

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,993018,00.h
tml

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."

One percent or less (the cleverest ones) teach the opposite - the Michelson-Morley experiment has confirmed Newton's emission theory 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."

So, according to John Norton, Divine Albert was honest but ninety-nine percent of brothers Einsteinians ("later writers almost universally") are fraudulent people. This is almost correct but Norton is wrong about Divine Albert - elsewhere I have shown that Divine Albert was the originator of the fraud.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 3, 2011 @ 20:56 GMT
Einsteiniana's priests shock believers:

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm

Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it."

Believers are baffled. What could have happened in 1907? "Wrong" is a wrong word perhaps? Did Smolin mean "incomplete"? An hour of silence but then again the wind carries the tunes of "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" all over the world.

Then John Norton shocks believers by providing the second moiety of the story:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf


John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."

Believers are baffled again. Variable?!?! This is more serious and the silence lasts for two days. On the third day Steve Carlip restores the serenity in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world by explaining to believers that, even though the speed of light may have been variable in 1907, now it is constant and that's it:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfL
ight/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."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Frank Martin DiMeglio wrote on Nov. 2, 2011 @ 15:12 GMT
How is sensory experience (ultimately, fundamentally, and generally) integrated and interactive with thought generally? This is the question in fundamentally understanding and experiencing physics.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 7, 2011 @ 14:49 GMT
Henri Poincaré and the speed of light:

http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article
/rhs_0151-4105_2002_num_55_1_2143

Vincent Borella: Les écrits épistémologiques de Poincaré, obstacles à la diffusion de la relativité? p. 74: "Pour Einstein le postulat de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à n'importe quel référentiel dans lequel elle est...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 7, 2011 @ 21:37 GMT
Einstein was completely wrong, Poincaré was on the right track, Ritz had reached the truth:

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908a.htm

Walther Ritz 1908: "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems possible to me, is that ether doesn't exist, or more exactly, that we should renounce use of this representation, that the motion of light is a relative motion like all the others, that only relative velocities play a role in the laws of nature; and finally that we should renounce use of partial differential equations and the notion of field, in the measure that this notion introduces absolute motion."

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity.ht
ml

Alberto Martinez: "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the speed of light depends on its source, just like all material projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913 most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is independent of its source had been found to be defective."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 8, 2011 @ 11:04 GMT
Einsteinians know no limits:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1110/1110.0521v2.
pdf

OPERA neutrinos and relativity, Giovanni Amelino-Camelia, Laurent Freidel, Jerzy Kowalski-Glikman, Lee Smolin: "Before we begin such an analysis it is crucial to recall that Lorentz invariance can be superseded in two ways. It can be "broken" in the sense that there is a preferred frame of reference. Or it can be "deformed", so that the principle of relativity of inertial frames is preserved, but the action of Lorentz transformations on physical states is deformed."

"Broken" (that is, abandoned) in the absence of a preferred frame of reference is an unpossibility. Newton's emission theory of light is an untheory. Walther Ritz is an unperson:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-4

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 8, 2011 @ 17:53 GMT
Ritz was not an unperson during his lifetime but Bryan Wallace was:

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/2063601/physics/S
pecLetters1969-p361-367.pdf

RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE, Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters 1969 pages 361-367: ABSTRACT: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c." INTRODUCTION: "There are three main theories about the relativity velocity of light in space. The Newtonian corpuscular theory is relativistic in the Galilean sense and postulates that the velocity is c+v relative to the observer. The ether theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the ether. The Einstein theory postulates that the velocity is c relative to the observer. The Michelson-Morley experiment presents evidence against the ether theory and for the c+v theory. The c theory explains the results of this experiment by postulating ad hoc properties of space and time..."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes. (...) Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...) The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth stands still and the Universe moves around it." [Note: Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text!]

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Peter Jackson wrote on Nov. 9, 2011 @ 00:18 GMT
Georgina

Wallace was exposing dishonesty in the rigging of supposed evidence for SR, not gambling. He was perhaps a bit undiplomatic. But the other end of the scale was the very eminent professor Dicke, who exposed Shapiro's (army funded) Venus fraud, and indeed spoke instead of Shapiro at the 5th Texas symposium, but only referred to 'systematic errors' that needed adressing.

They were never addressed and the lie remained, to this day.

Dicke used the real radar data to derive the Branse-Dicke 'relativistic' theory of gravity. but of course this brilliant work has been totally ignored. Hafele-Keating (clocks on jets) was the same story.; 'No amende resultees - no publicatees!' Even Hafele himself afterwards admitted "..those who doubt the validity of conventional relativity theory and there are many people in this category, probably will not be converted by the results shown in Figure 4 Indeed, the difference between theory and measurement in Figure 4 is disturbing."

He dared not put it any stronger!

And don't even ask what info Eddington passed to the astronomer who was asked to check a certain perihelion..!

No, it's not a game of chance and gambling, it's outright lies, cheating and dishonesty. Humankind deserves far better.

Speaking of that. Pentcho, did you reply to my post giving you the info you asked for? If so please tell me where, I've lost the thread! I'm sure keeping knocking Einstein will do no good at all unless someone had a better theory (that someone else will read!).

Best wishes

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Georgina Parry replied on Nov. 9, 2011 @ 01:26 GMT
Hi Peter,

Pentcho is providing lots of quotes to discredit SR and those scientists who wish to retain it. I was hoping by the analogy to explain why even when something does not seem a perfect fit it might be considered desirable to hang on to it.

There is dishonesty in all walks of life. So It is quite possible that there were/are those who have played or are playing the game dishonestly. However I also think you are right in that crying foul will do no good at all.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Nov. 9, 2011 @ 03:23 GMT
Hi Georgina,

This is directed really at Pentcho. Yes he provides lots of quotes. Yes he is arguing against relativity theory among most active participants here who are here because they already disagree with relativity theory. I am one of them. What is missing from Pentcho are his beliefs and supports for those beliefs.

I understood him to be arguing in favor of a speed of light that increases as photons approach objects with mass such as the Earth. I wondered, if I understood him correctly, if he had convincing arguments to back up that claim. He just continued with more quotes.

Quotes are taken out of context. If he is accomplishing something here I do not know what it is. He will not convince professionals who are trained in relativity theory that they are wrong by pulling quotes which probably almost all of them are familiar with. I have not yet seen a professional, and we know they exist here, if mostly as readers, bother to respond. I know I no longer follow up on checking out the correctness of his quotes.

My position has always been that relativity theory is clearly wrong. If Pentcho has something in the way of answers to offer, I have not seen them presented with support. Pentcho can, of course, correct me by referring to past messages with supported conclusions or he may offer those supported conclusions now.

As far as I am concerned, support does not consist of Einstein's or his critics quotes. For me, support consists of original work that refutes relativity theory at a level that, at the least, may be sufficient to attract resistance by professionals.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Nov. 9, 2011 @ 03:40 GMT
Pentcho,

Addressing you directly 'again'. Is it your position that the speed of light increases as light approaches the Earth? If so, can you please provide your reasons for believing that? I am not asking for more quotes that you think support your position that relativity theory is wrong. I am asking for your support for your ideas. We know that many of us and even some professionals have presented cases against relativity theory. What are your ideas that are different from relativity theory and what is your 'original' support for them?

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 9, 2011 @ 08:55 GMT
Lee Smolin knows "how Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special relativity":

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin0
3_print.html

Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory that...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 9, 2011 @ 20:21 GMT
Schizophrenic science (the absence of any reaction to the following texts would be unthinkable in a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world):

http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Physics-String-Theory-S
cience/dp/0618551050

Lee Smolin, The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next, p. 226: "Einstein's special theory of relativity is based on two postulates: One is the relativity of motion, and the second is the constancy and universality of the speed of light. Could the first postulate be true and the other false? If that was not possible, Einstein would not have had to make two postulates. But I don't think many people realized until recently that you could have a consistent theory in which you changed only the second postulate."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp
/0738205257

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a well-defined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects. Quantum gravity seemed to lack a dam - its effects wanted to spill out all over the place; and the underlying reason was none other than special relativity."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

James Putnam replied on Nov. 9, 2011 @ 20:36 GMT
Hi Pentcho,

Did you see my message asking for more from you than quotes from others? What is it that you know that is new and what original support for those views can you give? Do you have new theory to offer? What is it? Does it include derivations? Thank you.

James

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 9, 2011 @ 21:05 GMT
For instance, I know (and can prove) that the Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka experiments UNEQUIVOCALLY confirm the variable speed of light of Newton's emission theory of light and refute the constant speed of light of Einstein's relativity. A detailed proof would be too long but I have given sketches many times on this forum.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


mahesh khati wrote on Nov. 9, 2011 @ 19:44 GMT
Before 23 years, I had proved mathematically that relative velocity may be more than light velocity. CERN proved experimentally that velocity of Neutrinos may be more than light, if this news will be confirmed then that will be new beginning of physics.

Please read paper "What is matter & dark matter is made up of?" on my web site www.maheshkhati.com. This paper may help to find solution to problems like what is dark matter? & about true relativity. I strongly oppose special theory of relativity

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 07:55 GMT
Eckard asked: "...why do you assume wavelength constant but velocity variable?"

Because, at least in the moving observer case, there is no physical reason why the wavelength should change:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%2
0son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf

"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/Notes/Section6_3/Sec6_3.ht
m

Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer, imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving, the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves. In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 11, 2011 @ 12:57 GMT
The idea that the wavelength varies with the speed of the observer (so that Einsteinians can safely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity") is so absurd that only "the subtlest practitioners of doublethink" in Einsteiniana are entitled to express it explicitly:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/c
hapters/big_bang/index.html

John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Ordinary Einsteinians are not allowed even to think of the moving observer scenario. Yet sometimes they forget the ban and defend Divine Albert's Divine Theory in the following way (the University of South Carolina deleted the site eventually):

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html

"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide. The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again, this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 14:40 GMT
Einsteiniana: Zombie Education

As the observer starts moving towards the wave source, waves start hitting him more frequently, that is, the frequency he measures increases. However, while the observer is obviously unable to scrunch sound waves and water waves and their wavelength remains constant (that is, the speed of the waves relative to him increases), he gloriously manages to scrunch light waves so that their wavelength decreases and the speed of the waves relative to him remains constant, as gloriously postulated in Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity:

http://www.austincc.edu/jheath/Stellar/Hand/Deff/deff.htm

James E. Heath, Professor of Astronomy and Physics, Chair, Physical Sciences: "If we are headed towards the source of sound waves (...), the soundwaves hit our eardrums more frequently that they would if we were both standing still. (...) Imagine that you are standing on a beach, feet barely in the water. Waves come lapping into the shore at a rate of, say, one every five seconds, over your toes. If you dive in, and start swiing out to sea, you are travelling into the waves. Therefore, as you swim out to sea, waves will hit you more frequently, say one every 3 seconds. If you are in a speedboat, that could even increase to one per second! The rate of waves has not changed to someone standing still on the beach, but the rate at which you encounter them has changed. If you then turn around and swim or motor back to shore, waves strike you less frequently as you head away from the waves. (...) In the second situation, the distance between the source and observer is decreasing; the two are getting closer. This can be because the source is in motion, the observer is in motion, or both. What matters is that the two objects are getting closer together. Notice how the light waves get "scrunched up" by this motion. If the observer is a human eye, then the light waves strike the eye more frequently, causing the eye to see a slighly different color. The wavelength of the obseved light (called simply "lambda") appears shorter than the wavelength the light would have if the objects were "at rest" (called "lambda-zero")."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 12, 2011 @ 21:19 GMT
Zombie education and crimestop:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-22

George Orwell: "He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions - "the Party says the earth is flat", "the party says that ice is heavier than water" - and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The arithmetical problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as "two and two make five" were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

Orwell's text modified so as to describe a physics student's exercises in crimestop:

"He set to work to exercise himself in crimestop. He presented himself with propositions - "The professor says that, when the observer starts moving towards the light source, the wavelength of the light decreases but its speed relative to the observer remains constant", "The professor says that a 80m long pole can be trapped inside a 40m long barn" - and trained himself in not seeing or not understanding the arguments that contradicted them. It was not easy. It needed great powers of reasoning and improvisation. The problems raised, for instance, by such a statement as "The Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with both Einstein's 1905 light postulate and its antithesis, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light" were beyond his intellectual grasp. It needed also a sort of athleticism of mind, an ability at one moment to make the most delicate use of logic and at the next to be unconscious of the crudest logical errors. Stupidity was as necessary as intelligence, and as difficult to attain."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 15:04 GMT
Eckard,

You seem to be looking for an interpretation of the Pound-Rebka experiment based on the ether theory that could replace the emission theory's interpretation:

http://www.circlon-theory.com/HTML/poundRebka
.html

"...the photons are emitted at a wavelength of exactly one (lambda=1) that remains constant as they move through the gravitational "field." However, as they move thorough this field, the photons "fall" toward the earth like any other material body, so that the descending photons move at speeds increasingly greater than C, and the ascending photons move at decreasing speeds of less than C."

This, combined with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

gives an exact prediction of the experimental result.

If we assume that the light wave obeys the ether mechanics, it would be very difficult to explain why the speed of this wave varies with the gravitational potential EXACTLY as the speed of cannonballs does. Or, if we assume that the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field, then the wavelength should vary so as to mislead us into seeing a straightforward analogy between photons and cannonballs. Nature could not have devised such a canard.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Eckard Blumschein replied on Nov. 13, 2011 @ 23:44 GMT
Pentcho,

I see the link I pointed to providing quantitative arguments against explanations by relativists (1-3 and 5).

Obviously, the speed of light in empty space is only constant "c" without gravity. Gravity seems to cause a behavior of ether that make light a little bit dependent on direction of gravity. I could imagine accelerated air exhibiting the same effect for sound. The postulate of constancy of light would remain correct (relative to the medium) because acceleration and gravity are here not yet taken into account.

Let me add what Lanyi observed long ago when he studied with a high speed camera what happens after an explosion. At first, the channel expanded with a speed in excess of the speed of sound. Then a sound wave occurred that propagated in air with the belonging constant speed being independent from the strength of emitting explosion.

Eckard

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 11:24 GMT
Eckard

Just for the record, the curvature of light is dealt with by Einstein in section 22 The Foundations of the Generalised Theory of Relativity 1916.(the whole paper is too mathematical for me).

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 14, 2011 @ 13:54 GMT
Variable speed of light in a gravitational field:

The top of a tower of height h emits light towards the ground. An observer on the ground measures the frequency to be shifted in accordance with the equation f'=f(1+gh/c^2), an equation confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment. Given the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

two implications are conceivable:

(A) The speed of light is shifted in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2), an equation given by Newton's emission theory of light. The wavelength remains unchanged.

(B) The wavelength is shifted in accordance with the equation L'=L/(1+gh/c^2). The speed of light remains unchanged.

(A) is too dangerous for Einsteinana while (B) is too silly [why (B) is silly is a matter of different discussion]. So references to the behaviour of the speed of light in a gravitational field usually evoke crimestop in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17

George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Pentcho Valev wrote on Nov. 15, 2011 @ 15:23 GMT
Einstein introduces gravitational time dilation:

http://www.relativitybook.com/resources/Einstein_gr
avity.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)."

Four implications (or implicit assumptions):

1. Light is a continuous field of waves.

2. The measured speed of light does not vary with the gravitational potential when clocks of identical constitution are used.

3. The wavelength does not vary with the gravitational potential.

4. The formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength) is invalid when clocks of identical constitution are used.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Paul Reed replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 05:47 GMT
Pentcho

You are right to point out that this use of clocks to effect timing is incorrect. But as I have pointed out before, this was a daft implementation of an underlying assumption that matter changes dimension when force is applied which also changes momentum. In other words, rather than just accepting that as a consequence of a somewhat amorphous world, including an effect on light rays, timing would alter. There being differentials in timing for observers in different circumstances as well. He translated the effect of dimension change, ie agitation of atomic particles, as changing the tick rate of the timing device. This is nonsense, both as an idea, and that the effect would somehow be uniform. There is also the optical illusion, which I have explained before, of apparent frequency rate when moving. Whether Einstein had this in mind I do not know.

Having said that, it must be noted that this is a flaw in the explanation of a consequence. Time is not altering, it is timing. And as such, does not affect the theory. Explaing an aspect of it incorrectly does not make it wrong. It may be wrong, but not for this reason. There is then the question as to, having sorted out the logic according to them, whether the values attributed to these effects is correct.

Paul

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 14:00 GMT
It is easy to see that, if the time dilation factor (1+phi/c^2) introduced by Einstein in 1911 is true, then the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

is false both in the presence and in the absence of a gravitational field. For instance, Einstein says (see full quotation above):

"...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."

But "we" also measure a frequency shift:

f' = f(1+phi/c^2)

confirmed by the Pound-Rebka experiment and ENTIRELY caused by the time dilation effect, and an UNCHANGED wavelength (the assumption that the wavelength has changed is untenable since this would make the frequency shift different from the above one). Clearly the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength) is incompatible with the time dilation factor (1+phi/c^2). Einsteinians will have to denounce this formula officially if the precious gravitational time dilation is to last forever.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Pentcho Valev replied on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 14:36 GMT
Banesh Hoffmann contradicts Einstein very carefully: There is no gravitational time dilation - rather, the gravitational redshift "arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/d
p/0486406768

Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

What can befall light signals in the presence of gravitation? Banesh Hoffmann next discusses the variation of the speed of light in a gravitational field.

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 16, 2011 @ 14:13 GMT
Check out these photographs of the Moon's Craters. The dark comet tidal locking hypothesis would predict a greater number of craters on the side facing the Earth:

Wikipedia:[QUOTE]The two hemispheres have distinctly different appearances, with the near side covered in multiple, large maria (Latin for 'seas,' since the earliest astronomers incorrectly thought that these plains were seas of lunar water). The far side has a battered, densely cratered appearance with few maria. Only 1% of the surface of the far side is covered by maria, compared to 31.2% on the near side. One commonly accepted explanation for this difference is related to a higher concentration of heat-producing elements on the near-side hemisphere, as has been demonstrated by geochemical maps obtained from the Lunar Prospector gamma-ray spectrometer. While other factors such as surface elevation and crustal thickness could also affect where basalts erupt, these do not explain why the farside South Pole-Aitken basin (which contains the lowest elevations of the Moon and possesses a thin crust) was not as volcanically active as Oceanus Procellarum on the near side.

Another factor in the large difference between the two hemispheres is that the near side has been shielded from impacts by the Earth via the synchronous rotation that keeps the far side exposed to impactors coming from outer space.

It has also been proposed that the differences between the two hemispheres may have been caused by a collision with a smaller companion moon that also originated from the Theia collision. In this model the impact led to an accretionary pile rather than a crater, contributing a hemispheric layer of extent and thickness that may be consistent with the dimensions of the farside highlands.[End QUOTE]

This is in contradiction to the reality of more craters on the far side. This can be explained by the dark matter comets passing through the centre of the Moon and causing lava flows on the other side. These buried dark matter comets and their supermagnetic effects could be attributed to their entry crater to give an internal picture of their size, orientation and location as well as the structure and dynamics of the collision.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Alan Lowey wrote on Nov. 17, 2011 @ 11:05 GMT
lol. The Earth has more landmasses in the northern hemisphere which fits with the dark matter comet origins of our continents and also suggests they were made at different times in the distant past. This has huge implications for the dating of rocks and fossils for example

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.