| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pentcho Valev" |
| Date: |
16 Jan 2008 01:28:02 AM |
| Object: |
EXTREMELY SILLY EINSTEINIANS |
Most Einsteinians know that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential and that Einstein discovered this in 1907,
gave the respective equation in 1911 and confirmed the effect once
more in 1920. Most Einsteinians also know that Einstein's 1911
equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light and therefore Einstein's 1905 light
postulate is just false. And Einsteinans devise various kinds of
camouflage - some are silly, others not so silly.
However there is a group of Extremely Silly Einsteinians (ESE) who
know the following: Special relativity says the speed of light is both
constant and maximal and this has been confirmed by the Michelson-
Morley experiment and any other experiment. In a gravitational field
the speed of photons should obey what special relativity says.
Examples of ESE:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
ESE Stephen Hawking: "Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as
consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be
slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a
famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley
in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred
and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from.
How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."
http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_uploads/static_resources/0534493394/4891/Ch01-Essay.pdf
ESE Clifford Will, "THE RENAISSANCE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY": "The first
glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the
writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell.
Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be
attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from
the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time the light
was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special
relativity.)"
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXTREMELY SILLY EINSTEINIANS |
16 Jan 2008 02:22:53 AM |
|
|
An example of camouflage that is "not so silly":
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/128cc9ce0b836800?
Tom Roberts, Jan 16, 2008:
John Kennaugh wrote:
Mass is defined either as gravitational mass - measured by the
force between one mass and another or as inertial mass in terms of
momentum - which turns out to be the same as gravitational mass. My
question was not why an electron has charge or why an electron has mass
but why a photon doesn't have mass when it has all the properties which
define mass i.e. it is effected by gravity and it has momentum.
Tom Roberts: "Today is not 1700, nor is it 1904. You are using
outmoded definitions for "mass". Today the mass of an object is
defined as the norm of its 4-momentum. As photons follow null
geodesics to incredibly high accuracy, they have zero mass (also to
incredibly high accuracy). Attempting to use "affected by gravity" as
a definition of "mass" is hopelessly outmoded. Our best theory of
gravity, GR, does not require an object to have mass in order to be
"affected by gravity" -- gravity is geometry and EVERYTHING is
inherently "affected". Attempting to use "has momentum" as a
definition of "mass" is also hopelessly outmoded. In both SR and GR,
an object can possess momentum while having zero mass. This
necessarily implies that such an object follows a null geodesic, but
that's OK because that is what we observe. You seem to forget that the
definitions of terminology used in physics depends on the physical
theories used -- the meanings of words change over time. Of course
this happens in everyday life as well, but change has been
particularly rapid in science during the past century or so. Your pre-
relativity and pre-quantum word meanings are hopeless in today's
world."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXTREMELY SILLY EINSTEINIANS |
17 Jan 2008 04:51:31 AM |
|
|
Hawking should rather be called Incredibly Silly Einsteinian (ISE).
Note the relation between Einstein's first postulate (the principle of
relativity) and Einstein's second postulate (the principle of
constancy of the speed of light) that only ISE Stephen Hawking and ISE
Albert Einstein (Chapter 7 in his "Relativity") were able to see:
http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/a_brief_history_of_rela6a.html
ISE Stephen Hawking: "In that 1905 paper, Einstein pointed out that
because you could not detect whether or not you were moving through
the ether, the whole notion of an ether was redundant. Instead,
Einstein started from the postulate that the laws of science should
appear the same to all freely moving observers. IN PARTICULAR,
observers should all measure the same speed for light, no matter how
they were moving."
Yet this IN PARTICULAR above looks so silly that perhaps both Stephen
Hawking and Albert Einstein should be called, in the end, Incredibly
Dishonest Einsteinians (IDE).
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXTREMELY SILLY EINSTEINIANS |
17 Jan 2008 09:14:23 AM |
|
|
On Jan 17, 12:51 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hawking should rather be called Incredibly Silly Einsteinian (ISE).
Note the relation between Einstein's first postulate (the principle of
relativity) and Einstein's second postulate (the principle of
constancy of the speed of light) that only ISE Stephen Hawking and ISE
Albert Einstein (Chapter 7 in his "Relativity") were able to see:
http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/a_brief_history_of_rela6a.html
ISE Stephen Hawking: "In that 1905 paper, Einstein pointed out that
because you could not detect whether or not you were moving through
the ether, the whole notion of an ether was redundant. Instead,
Einstein started from the postulate that the laws of science should
appear the same to all freely moving observers. IN PARTICULAR,
observers should all measure the same speed for light, no matter how
they were moving."
Yet this IN PARTICULAR above looks so silly that perhaps both Stephen
Hawking and Albert Einstein should be called, in the end, Incredibly
Dishonest Einsteinians (IDE).
The text where ISE or IDE Albert Einstein informs Einstein zombie
world that his second postulate (the principle of constancy of the
speed of light) is a corollary of his first postulate (the principle
of relativity):
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Albert Einstein (1879-1955). Relativity: The Special and General
Theory. 1920. VII. The Apparent Incompatibility of the Law of
Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity:
"Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light
relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the
consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays
the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The
velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by
the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required
velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage
thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict
with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V. For, like
every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of
light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the
same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are
the body of reference. But, from our above consideration, this would
appear to be impossible. If every ray of light is propagated relative
to the embankment with the velocity c, then for this reason it would
appear that another law of propagation of light must necessarily hold
with respect to the carriage--a result contradictory to the principle
of relativity."
Another Incredibly Silly Einsteinian (ISE) or Incredibly Dishonest
Einsteinian (IDE) is Steve Carlip who teaches Einstein zombie world in
the following way:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
ISE or IDE Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum,
constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the
following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was
adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in
vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This
defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s.
This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant":
Yes, c is CONSTANT BY DEFINITION!"
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXTREMELY SILLY EINSTEINIANS |
26 Jan 2008 08:19:15 AM |
|
|
String theorists: definitely the silliest Einsteinians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzMEAkI-yrQ&feature=related
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXTREMELY SILLY EINSTEINIANS |
27 Jan 2008 04:10:03 AM |
|
|
On Jan 26, 4:19=A0pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
String theorists: definitely the silliest Einsteinians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DyzMEAkI-yrQ&feature=3Drelated
Compare with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DIqhlQfXUk7w
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXTREMELY SILLY EINSTEINIANS |
29 Jan 2008 01:13:48 AM |
|
|
On Jan 27, 12:10 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:19 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
String theorists: definitely the silliest Einsteinians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzMEAkI-yrQ&feature=related
Compare with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqhlQfXUk7w
String theorists: silly but expensive Einsteinians:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/physics-prof-pr.html
"Physics Prof Proposes String Theory Test (But It'll Cost Us). The
apparent inability of physics' string theory to be proved right or
wrong is one of the stickiest - and argument-generating - problems in
modern science. But now researchers at the University of Illinois say
they might have a way to test some of string theory's predictions.
Only problem? It'll be very, very expense. String theory is probably
the most well-fleshed out candidate today for a so-called Theory of
Everything. That means that it would integrate virtually everything we
know about physics thus far, including the microscopic observations of
the sub-atomic world and events that happen on a galaxy-wide scale,
and follow the rules of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXTREMELY SILLY EINSTEINIANS |
29 Jan 2008 03:40:58 AM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 9:13=A0am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 27, 12:10 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:19 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
String theorists: definitely the silliest Einsteinians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DyzMEAkI-yrQ&feature=3Drelated
Compare with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DIqhlQfXUk7w
String theorists: silly but expensive Einsteinians:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/physics-prof-pr.html
"Physics Prof Proposes String Theory Test (But It'll Cost Us). The
apparent inability of physics' string theory to be proved right or
wrong is one of the stickiest - and argument-generating - problems in
modern science. But now researchers at the University of Illinois say
they might have a way to test some of string theory's predictions.
Only problem? It'll be very, very expense. String theory is probably
the most well-fleshed out candidate today for a so-called Theory of
Everything. That means that it would integrate virtually everything we
know about physics thus far, including the microscopic observations of
the sub-atomic world and events that happen on a galaxy-wide scale,
and follow the rules of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity."
Amazingly, string theorists believe that quantum gravity theorists are
the silliest Einsteinians:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/06/lee-smolin-vs-thibault-damour.html
Motl: "Damour has argued that not even Smolin can be so limited that
he would actually believe the naive Popperian dogmas. Well, I am
afraid that Smolin is much more stupid than Damour can even imagine.
Accepting statements of philosophers as dogmas, blowing them out of
proportion, applying them behind the range of their validity
regardless of physical arguments, and using them to organize witch
hunts is something that Lee Smolin is very good at."
Those who know French could easily see that quantum gravity theorist
Lee Smolin is silly indeed but string theorist Thibault Damour is much
sillier:
http://www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/college/v2/html/2006_2007/conf=
erences/conference_342.htm
Pentcho valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXTREMELY SILLY EINSTEINIANS |
29 Jan 2008 04:23:25 AM |
|
|
On Jan 29, 11:40=A0am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:13=A0am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 27, 12:10 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 4:19 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
String theorists: definitely the silliest Einsteinians:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DyzMEAkI-yrQ&feature=3Drelated
Compare with this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DIqhlQfXUk7w
String theorists: silly but expensive Einsteinians:
http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/01/physics-prof-pr.html
"Physics Prof Proposes String Theory Test (But It'll Cost Us). The
apparent inability of physics' string theory to be proved right or
wrong is one of the stickiest - and argument-generating - problems in
modern science. But now researchers at the University of Illinois say
they might have a way to test some of string theory's predictions.
Only problem? It'll be very, very expense. String theory is probably
the most well-fleshed out candidate today for a so-called Theory of
Everything. That means that it would integrate virtually everything we
know about physics thus far, including the microscopic observations of
the sub-atomic world and events that happen on a galaxy-wide scale,
and follow the rules of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity."
Amazingly, string theorists believe that quantum gravity theorists are
the silliest Einsteinians:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/06/lee-smolin-vs-thibault-damour.html
Motl: "Damour has argued that not even Smolin can be so limited that
he would actually believe the naive Popperian dogmas. Well, I am
afraid that Smolin is much more stupid than Damour can even imagine.
Accepting statements of philosophers as dogmas, blowing them out of
proportion, applying them behind the range of their validity
regardless of physical arguments, and using them to organize witch
hunts is something that Lee Smolin is very good at."
Those who know French could easily see that quantum gravity theorist
Lee Smolin is silly indeed but string theorist Thibault Damour is much
sillier:
http://www.cite-sciences.fr/francais/ala_cite/college/v2/html/2006_2007/co=
nferences/conference_342.htm
Note how desperately silly Smolin asks sillier Damour what would
happen if the speed of photons is not constant. Sillier Damour
believes there is nothing to worry about: after all, string theory
presupposes a lot of Lorentz violations. Bold Damour is going to go
beyond Einstein - he wants to have constants that vary.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXTREMELY SILLY EINSTEINIANS |
28 Jan 2008 12:51:50 AM |
|
|
On Jan 16, 9:28=A0am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Most Einsteinians know that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential and that Einstein discovered this in 1907,
gave the respective equation in 1911 and confirmed the effect once
more in 1920. Most Einsteinians also know that Einstein's 1911
equation c'=3Dc(1+V/c^2) is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=3Dc+v given by
Newton's emission theory of light and therefore Einstein's 1905 light
postulate is just false. And Einsteinans devise various kinds of
camouflage - some are silly, others not so silly.
However there is a group of Extremely Silly Einsteinians (ESE) who
know the following: Special relativity says the speed of light is both
constant and maximal and this has been confirmed by the Michelson-
Morley experiment and any other experiment. In a gravitational field
the speed of photons should obey what special relativity says.
Examples of ESE:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
ESE Stephen Hawking: "Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as
consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be
slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a
famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley
in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred
and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from.
How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."
http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_uploads/static_resources/0534493394/48=
91/Ch01-Essay.pdf
ESE Clifford Will, "THE RENAISSANCE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY": "The first
glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the
writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell.
Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be
attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from
the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time the light
was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special
relativity.)"
http://www.physicscentral.com/writers/2000/will.html
Clifford Will: "Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the
Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on
the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity
curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks
to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net
result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a
clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day."
"Clifford M. Will is Professor and Chair of Physics at Washington
University in St. Louis, and is the author of Was Einstein Right? In
1986 he chaired a study for the Air Force to find out if they were
handling relativity properly in GPS. They were."
Clifford Will, the extremely silly Professor and Chair of Physics at
Washington University in St. Louis, does not know that the presence or
absence of gravitational time dilation depends on the validity of
Einstein's 1911 equation c'=3Dc(1+V/c^2) showing how the speed of light
varies with the gravitational potential. If Einstein's 1911 equation
is correct, then the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2
experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka PROVES that there is NO
GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pentcho Valev" |
|
| Title: Re: EXTREMELY SILLY EINSTEINIANS |
31 Jan 2008 08:09:55 AM |
|
|
On Jan 28, 8:51=A0am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Jan 16, 9:28=A0am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Most Einsteinians know that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential and that Einstein discovered this in 1907,
gave the respective equation in 1911 and confirmed the effect once
more in 1920. Most Einsteinians also know that Einstein's 1911
equation c'=3Dc(1+V/c^2) is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=3Dc+v given by=
Newton's emission theory of light and therefore Einstein's 1905 light
postulate is just false. And Einsteinans devise various kinds of
camouflage - some are silly, others not so silly.
However there is a group of Extremely Silly Einsteinians (ESE) who
know the following: Special relativity says the speed of light is both
constant and maximal and this has been confirmed by the Michelson-
Morley experiment and any other experiment. In a gravitational field
the speed of photons should obey what special relativity says.
Examples of ESE:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
ESE Stephen Hawking: "Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as
consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be
slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a
famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley
in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred
and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from.
How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back."
http://admin.wadsworth.com/resource_uploads/static_resources/0534493394/=
4891/Ch01-Essay.pdf
ESE Clifford Will, "THE RENAISSANCE OF GENERAL RELATIVITY": "The first
glimmerings of the black hole idea date to the 18th century, in the
writings of a British amateur astronomer, the Reverend John Michell.
Reasoning on the basis of the corpuscular theory that light would be
attracted by gravity, he noted that the speed of light emitted from
the surface of a massive body would be reduced by the time the light
was very far from the source. (Michell of course did not know special
relativity.)"
http://www.physicscentral.com/writers/2000/will.html
Clifford Will: "Also, the orbiting clocks are 20,000 km above the
Earth, and experience gravity that is four times weaker than that on
the ground. Einstein's general relativity theory says that gravity
curves space and time, resulting in a tendency for the orbiting clocks
to tick slightly faster, by about 45 microseconds per day. The net
result is that time on a GPS satellite clock advances faster than a
clock on the ground by about 38 microseconds per day."
"Clifford M. Will is Professor and Chair of Physics at Washington
University in St. Louis, and is the author of Was Einstein Right? In
1986 he chaired a study for the Air Force to find out if they were
handling relativity properly in GPS. They were."
Clifford Will, the extremely silly Professor and Chair of Physics at
Washington University in St. Louis, does not know that the presence or
absence of gravitational time dilation depends on the validity of
Einstein's 1911 equation c'=3Dc(1+V/c^2) showing how the speed of light
varies with the gravitational potential. If Einstein's 1911 equation
is correct, then the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2
experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka PROVES that there is NO
GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION.
Clifford Will explains Divine Albert's attitude:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0504/0504085v1.pdf
Clifford Will: "While the great physicists of the day, such as
Lorentz, Poincare and others were struggling to bring all these facts
together by proposing concepts such as "internal time", or postulating
and then rejecting "aether drift", Einstein's attitude seems to have
been similar to that expressed in the American idiom: "if it walks
like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck". If light's speed
seems to be constant, then perhaps it really is a constant, no matter
who measures it."
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
