Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Well, can you come up with something better than Einstein's relativity?
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Jun 8, 2016, 2:05:45 AM6/8/16
to
http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2016/06/dear-dr-b-why-not-string-theory.html
Marco asks: "Dear Dr B: Why not string theory?" Sabine Hossenfelder replies: "Because we might be wasting time and money and, ultimately, risk that progress stalls entirely. [...] For what quantum gravity is concerned, string theorist’s main argument seems to be “Well, can you come up with something better?”
This "argument" is not a patent of string theorists; all Einsteinians use it when the obvious absurdity of Einstein's relativity is exposed. Here is the full version:
Well, can you come up with something better than Einstein's relativity?
In a world different from Einstein schizophrenic world, the answer would be easy. Einstein's "science" parted from the traditional Newtonian science when Einstein replaced Newton's true assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of both the source and the observer with the false assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of both the source and the observer. So the Newtonian science is obviously better than the Einsteinian "science" - the latter involves a falsehood that is absent in the former.
The Newtonian theory would be flawed if the propagation speed of gravity is not infinite, but the problem should be solved within the theory. Einstein's relativity cannot be the solution of anything - it was born in sin and should be discarded altogether.
Pentcho Valev
Marco asks: "Dear Dr B: Why not string theory?" Sabine Hossenfelder replies: "Because we might be wasting time and money and, ultimately, risk that progress stalls entirely. [...] For what quantum gravity is concerned, string theorist’s main argument seems to be “Well, can you come up with something better?”
This "argument" is not a patent of string theorists; all Einsteinians use it when the obvious absurdity of Einstein's relativity is exposed. Here is the full version:
Well, can you come up with something better than Einstein's relativity?
In a world different from Einstein schizophrenic world, the answer would be easy. Einstein's "science" parted from the traditional Newtonian science when Einstein replaced Newton's true assumption that the speed of light varies with the speed of both the source and the observer with the false assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of both the source and the observer. So the Newtonian science is obviously better than the Einsteinian "science" - the latter involves a falsehood that is absent in the former.
The Newtonian theory would be flawed if the propagation speed of gravity is not infinite, but the problem should be solved within the theory. Einstein's relativity cannot be the solution of anything - it was born in sin and should be discarded altogether.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Jun 8, 2016, 12:17:13 PM6/8/16
to
Without recourse to length contraction and other fudge factors (in Banesh Hoffmann's text below: "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
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."
Pentcho Valev
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
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."
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Jun 10, 2016, 12:41:00 PM6/10/16
to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pSxaDFkZU8
Why Einstein Wanted To Unify [e.g. particles of light and waves of light]
My comment on YouTube:
Light behaves like particles in certain respects and waves in other respects but insofar as its speed is concerned, light behaves like particles - the speed of photons varies like the speed of ordinary projectiles, both in the presence and absence of a gravitational field:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots", Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "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."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170
Richard Feynman, "QED: The strange theory of light and matter", p. 15: "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 probably learned 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."
Pentcho Valev
Why Einstein Wanted To Unify [e.g. particles of light and waves of light]
My comment on YouTube:
Light behaves like particles in certain respects and waves in other respects but insofar as its speed is concerned, light behaves like particles - the speed of photons varies like the speed of ordinary projectiles, both in the presence and absence of a gravitational field:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots", Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "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."
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Theory-Light-Matter/dp/0691024170
Richard Feynman, "QED: The strange theory of light and matter", p. 15: "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 probably learned 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."
Pentcho Valev
0 new messages