CONSERVAPEDIA: COUNTEREXAMPLES TO RELATIVITY
Pentcho Valev
(those who don't know how to leave the sinking ship) felt uneasy:
http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity
Conservapedia: "Here is a list of 29 counterexamples: any one of them
shows that the theory [of relativity] is incorrect."
When a theory is an inconsistency, that is, when it makes
contradictory statements, it does not make much sense to look for
counterexamples (a counterexample to which one of the, say, three
incompatible statements made by the theory?). Imagine you have some
independent evidence showing how the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential, and you want to use it as a counterexample
against Einstein's general relativity. But what does Einstein's
general relativity say about the variation of th speed of light in a
gravitational field? By searching in Internet, you may find
Einsteiniana's experts saying that the speed of light varies with the
gravitational potential in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
given by Newton's emission theory of light and consistent with the
Pound-Rebka experiment showing that the frequency varies in accordance
with f'=f(1+V/c^2):
http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."
Other experts of Einsteiniana would teach you that c'=c(1+V/c^2) is
wrong; in 1915 Einstein made the speed of light even more variable in
a gravitational field:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/07/22/gravity-and-light/
"One of the most interesting predictions of Einstein's new theory of
relativity was that gravity would cause light to bend." I think it is
worth mentioning that the bending of light due to gravity was NOT a
prediction of general relativity. As early as 1704 in his Opticks,
Newton predicted the effect. However, the speed of light was not known
a the time (or even whether it was finite) so no quantitative
prediction could be made. This was rectified by the end of the 18th
century and the Newtonian calculation could be made, though
experimental limitations forbade any test at the time. In 1911
Einstein applied his early ideas of relativistic gravity to the
problem and got the same answer as the Newtonian model. In 1915, when
his theory was approaching completion, he realised the earlier
calculation was wrong, and the deviation of light should be twice the
Newtonian value."
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."
http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf
). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in
the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."
Then Stephen Hawking, the Albert Einstein of our generation, will
explain to you that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light is
not variable at all - the Michelson-Morley experiment has disproved
any variability. So, gravitational field or no gravitational field,
the speed of light is constant and that's it:
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."
Stephen Hawking's ideas are further deveoped by other experts of
Einsteinana who will explain to you that the speed of light is not the
only constant - the frequency is constant as well (poor Pound and
Rebka - what did they measure?):
http://www.answers.com/topic/gravitational-redshift
"The gravitational weakening of light from high-gravity stars was
predicted by John Michell in 1783 and Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796,
using Isaac Newton's concept of light corpuscles (see: emission
theory) and who predicted that some stars would have a gravity so
strong that light would not be able to escape. The effect of gravity
on light was then explored by Johann Georg von Soldner (1801), who
calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by the sun,
arriving at the Newtonian answer which is half the value predicted by
general relativity. All of this early work assumed that light could
slow down and fall, which was inconsistent with the modern
understanding of light waves. Once it became accepted that light is an
electromagnetic wave, it was clear that the frequency of light should
not change from place to place, since waves from a source with a fixed
frequency keep the same frequency everywhere."
Finally, Steve Carlip, another Albert Einstein of our generation, will
put an end to your qualms by explaining to you that, in a
gravitational field, the speed of light is both variable and constant:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/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
pva...@yahoo.com
didier
> Recently a Conservapedia entry stirred a controversy and Einsteinians
> http://conservapedia.com/Counterexamples_to_Relativity
> Conservapedia: "Here is a list of 29 counterexamples: any one of them
> shows that the theory [of relativity] is incorrect."
J'avais déjà indiqué ce site. Tu devrais suivre un peu mieux les
messages postés sur ce forum.
Mais je vois qu'en effet il y a un point de plus (le 29).
Ce point est intéressant (en dehors de l'affirmation au début qui est
totalement fantaisiste) et je conseille d'aller voir la référence
indiquée car c'est un merveilleux exemple de phrase sortie de son
contexte.
Ca peut souvent être utile pour juger des citations dans tout article
ou livre. Il faut être méfiant.
didier
pas seulement des horeurs et de curieuses références religieuses. Il y
a aussi des éléments factuels faux !
Point 24. "in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same
rate".
Ceci est faux. En voilà qui n'ont jamais travaillé avec des horloges
atomiques et avec les corrections à faire avec ces horloges !!!!
Pentcho Valev
Lorentz telling moving objects how to contract so that the null result
of the Michelson-Morley experiment could fit the ether theory was
still not published. In that period the experiment unequivocally
confirmed the dependence of the speed of light on the speed of the
emitter as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light (c'=c+v),
and refuted the antithesis saying that the speed of light is
independent of the speed of the emitter (c'=c, the future light
postulate of Einstein). How can one verify this? Calculations of the
Michelson-Morley experiment given in textbooks are usually equivalent
to the original calculations of Michelson and Morley (you will never
find calculations based on the emission theory). It is easy to see
that the only feature of the ether theory used in those calculations
is the independence of the speed of light of the speed of the emitter,
that is, one would be right in saying that the calculations are
effectively based on Einstein's 1905 light postulate. So one obtains
that the times the two beams take are different (L is the length of
the interferometer's arm, v is the speed of the interferometer
relative to the ether):
T1 = (2L/c)/(1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)
T2 = (2L/c)/(1-v^2/c^2)
On the other hand, the experiment has shown equal times, that is, the
experiment contadicts Einstein's 1905 light postulate. Clever
relativists secretly remove the ether and introduce an observer
relative to whom the speed of the interferometer is v. Then they
assume that photons behave like elastic balls, in accordance with
Newton's emission theory of light, and repeat the calculations by
replacing the old assumption (c'=c) with the new one (c'=c+v). So they
obtain:
T1 = T2 = 2L/c
That is, without the absurd ad hoc hypothesis of Fitzgerald and
Lorentz, the Michelson-Morley experiment gives exactly what Newton's
emission theory of light predicts.
When life gets boring, clever relativists (1% in Einsteiniana) start
teasing silly relativists (99% in Einsteiniana) by informing them
that:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Initially silly relativists are shocked but quickly restore their self-
confidence and start fiercely singing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we
all believe in relativity, relativity, relaticity":
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
In the end silly relativists' ecstasy gets too great and they go into
convulsions.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
measurement of the deflection of starlight, Mercury's anomalous
perihelion advance and Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement of
Sirius B gravitational redshift (in a world different from
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world "classical" would be replaced by
"fraudulent"):
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert
"Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned
at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's
theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and
the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse
measurements to confirm general relativity."
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not
be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in
progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition,
observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed
deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a
German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of
reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic,
therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that
expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were
trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of
knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in
science."
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it
on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington
declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame
and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged
the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No
wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955,
scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
action."
http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "L'expédition britannique envoie deux équipes
indépendantes sur le trajet de l'éclipse : l'une dirigée par Andrew
Crommelin dans la ville de Sobral, dans le nord du Brésil, l'autre
conduite par Eddington lui-même sur l'île de Principe, en face de
Libreville, au Gabon. Le matériel embarqué est des plus sommaires au
regard des moyens actuels : une lunette astronomique de seulement 20
cm de diamètre en chaque lieu, avec un instrument de secours de 10 cm
à Sobral. Pour éviter l'emploi d'une monture mécanique trop lourde à
transporter, la lumière est dirigée vers les lunettes par de simples
miroirs mobiles, ce qui se révélera être une bien mauvaise idée. La
stratégie est assez complexe. Il s'agit d'exposer des plaques
photographiques durant l'éclipse pour enregistrer la position d'un
maximum d'étoiles autour du Soleil, puis de comparer avec des plaques
témoins de la même région du ciel obtenues de nuit, quelques mois plus
tard. La différence des positions entre les deux séries de plaques,
avec et sans le Soleil, serait la preuve de l'effet de la relativité
et le résultat est bien sûr connu à l'avance. Problème non
négligeable : la différence attendue est minuscule. Au maximum, au
bord même du Soleil, l'écart prévu est seulement de un demi dix-
millième de degré, soit très précisément 1,75 seconde d'arc (1,75"),
correspondant à l'écart entre les deux bords d'une pièce de monnaie
observée à 3 km de distance ! Or, quantités d'effets parasites peuvent
contaminer les mesures, la qualité de l'émulsion photographique, les
variations dans l'atmosphère terrestre, la dilatation des miroirs...
Le jour J, l'équipe brésilienne voit le ciel se dégager au dernier
moment mais Eddington n'aperçoit l'éclipse qu'à travers les nuages !
Sa quête est très maigre, tout juste deux plaques sur lesquelles on
distingue à peine cinq étoiles. Pressé de rentrer en Angleterre,
Eddington ne prend même pas la précaution d'attendre les plaques
témoins. Les choses vont beaucoup mieux à Sobral : 19 plaques avec
plus d'une dizaine d'étoiles et huit plaques prises avec la lunette de
secours. L'équipe reste sur place deux mois pour réaliser les fameuses
plaques témoins et, le 25 août, tout le monde est en Angleterre.
Eddington se lance dans des calculs qu'il est le seul à contrôler,
décidant de corriger ses propres mesures avec des plaques obtenues
avec un autre instrument, dans une autre région du ciel, autour
d'Arcturus. Il conclut finalement à une déviation comprise entre 1,31"
et 1,91" : le triomphe d'Einstein est assuré ! Très peu sûr de sa
méthode, Eddington attend anxieusement les résultats de l'autre
expédition qui arrivent en octobre, comme une douche froide : suivant
une méthode d'analyse rigoureuse, l'instrument principal de Sobral a
mesuré une déviation de seulement 0,93". La catastrophe est en vue.
S'ensuivent de longues tractations entre Eddington et Dyson,
directeurs respectifs des observatoires de Cambridge et de Greenwich.
On repêche alors les données de la lunette de secours de Sobral, qui a
le bon goût de produire comme résultat un confortable 1,98", et le
tour de passe-passe est joué. Dans la publication historique de la
Royal Society, on lit comme justification une simple note : "Il reste
les plaques astrographiques de Sobral qui donnent une déviation de
0,93", discordantes par une quantité au-delà des limites des erreurs
accidentelles. Pour les raisons déjà longuement exposées, peu de poids
est accordé à cette détermination." Plus loin, apparaît la conclusion
catégorique: "Les résultats de Sobral et Principe laissent peu de
doute qu'une déviation de la lumière existe au voisinage du Soleil et
qu'elle est d'une amplitude exigée par la théorie de la relativité
généralisée d'Einstein." Les données gênantes ont donc tout simplement
été escamotées."
http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/01/26/l-erreur-d-einstein-la-deuxieme.html
"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire
aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations
étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet
espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du
périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement
de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent
finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le
résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse
du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des
observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous
voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la
théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein.
Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la
difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours,
il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."
http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "L'épilogue du dernier test de la relativité,
celui de l'orbite de Mercure, est encore plus passionnant. Ce fut en
réalité un test a posteriori de la théorie, puisque la prédiction a
fait suite à l'observation et ne l'a pas précédée. L'accord est
stupéfiant. Le décalage observé dans la position de Mercure est de
43,11" par siècle, tandis que la prédiction de la relativité est de
42,98" par siècle ! Cette révision de l'horloge cosmique est toujours
considérée comme le grand succès d'Einstein, mais elle est encore sous
l'épée de Damoclès. En effet, des scientifiques soupçonnent que le
Soleil pourrait ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique et un
"aplatissement" réel introduirait une correction supplémentaire. La
précision actuelle deviendrait alors le talon d'Achille compromettant
le bel accord de la théorie."
http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html
Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational
Redshift of Sirius B
Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona.
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt.
Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in
Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925
published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate.
Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of
General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and
the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). IT HAS BEEN
KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT BOTH EDDINGTON'S ESTIMATE AND ADAMS'
MEASUREMENT UNDERESTIMATED THE TRUE SIRIUS B GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT BY
A FACTOR OF FOUR."
http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet Bidaud: "Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on
découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très
faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut
supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite
qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à
cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles
caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur
gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation
est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée
pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse
aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson,
en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker
entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une
température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même,
le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20
km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le
grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la
mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il
mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de
corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique,
le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s,
et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés
comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test
de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se
congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat,
pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance
effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était
largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington,
l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup
plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge
mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses
plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné
d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude
a bien été envisagée."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
"But Clifford Will, professor of physics at Washington University in
St. Louis, did weigh in. "The Internet world is full of kooks and
crackpots who put out all kinds of drivel. It is pointless to attempt
to refute these people with evidence, because they don't believe in
evidence," Will wrote in an e-mail from Paris. "...People may not like
relativity," he wrote, "but the experimental and observational
evidence that supports it is so overwhelming that it is now a fact of
the universe."
According to Clifford Will, there is overwhelming evidence showing
that Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
"...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity
c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."
is true. Yet Will's brothers Einsteinians (Will wouldn't call them
"kooks and crackpots") drop awful hints sometimes:
http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
than 30 leading cosmologists."
http://roychristopher.com/joao-magueijo-frontier-cosmology
"Likewise, Joao Magueijo has radical ideas, but his ideas intend to
turn that Einsteinian dogma on its head. Marueijo is trying to pick
apart one of Einsteins most impenetrable tenets, the constancy of the
speed of light. This idea of a constant speed (about 3×106 meters/
second) is familiar to anyone who is remotely acquainted with modern
physics. It is known as the universal speed limit. Nothing can, has,
or ever will travel faster than light. Magueijo doesnt buy it. His VSL
(Varying Speed of Light) presupposes a speed of light that can be
energy or time-space dependent. Before you declare that hes out of his
mind, understand that this man received his doctorate from Cambridge,
has been a faculty member at Princeton and Cambridge, and is currently
a professor at Imperial College, London. Hes a MAINSTREAM SCIENTIST
WHOSE MIND IS BEGINNING TO WANDER."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E7D8143FF932A05751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
"As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent
clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in
particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the
same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations
of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical
consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies
all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed
up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes
using the word ''relative.''......''Perhaps relativity is too
restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity,'' Dr. Magueijo said.
''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of
light.''
http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Searching_for_the_Golden_Spike.pdf
"Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the
speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates
special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at
a constant speed for all observers..."
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_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 says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another
possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved,
but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so
as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most
shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real
possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without
violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years
ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."
Even Divine Albert, at the end of his life, suddenly got honest and
spoke of the aftermath of his 1905 false light postulate:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
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."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
A clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "And then, in June, Einstein
completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story:
Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special
relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red
Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes
a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as
wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each
problem in turn. Now that's tough."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
Another clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "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
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
a non-zero mass. You know about Einsteiniana's claim that Einstein's
1905 light postulate cannot be true unless the photon has a zero mass;
accordingly, you see your evidence as a crucial counterexample and
expect it to make a revolution in science. You inform Einsteiniana's
schizophrenic world about it and Einsteiniana's reaction is as
follows: Zero mass or non-zero mass, Divine Albert's Divine Special
Relativity is ETERNAL because Einstein's 1905 false light postulate is
OBSOLETE. There is a "villain" in the story, who, of course, is
Newton:
http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond "De la relativité à la chronogéométrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière
est une conséquence de la nullité de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
supérieure expérimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais être considérée
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait même que de
futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, désormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle
invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus économiques. En vérité, le premier postulat suffit, à la
condition de l'exploiter à fond."
http://www.hep.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/mechanics/levy-leblond_ajp_44_271_76.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c. (...) We believe that special relativity at the present time
stands as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common
space-time arena in which all fundamental processes take place. (...)
The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such,
shake in any way the validity of the special relalivity. It would,
however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance
of the photon velocity."
http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."
http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Relativity-Beyond-Approaches-Theoretical/dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801.500-why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity
29 October 2008, Mark Buchanan, NEW SCIENTIST
"This "second postulate" is the source of all Einstein's eccentric
physics of shrinking space and haywire clocks. And with a little
further thought, it leads to the equivalence of mass and energy
embodied in the iconic equation E = mc2. The argument is not about the
physics, which countless experiments have confirmed. It is about
whether we can reach the same conclusions without hoisting light onto
its highly irregular pedestal. (...) But in fact, says Feigenbaum,
both Galileo and Einstein missed a surprising subtlety in the maths -
one that renders Einstein's second postulate superfluous. (...) The
idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light could
actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a nasty
shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles of
light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small - less
than 10-49 grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply that our
understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that electric
charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough, but a
massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second postulate,
as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same
speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists'
beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.research/msg/44d3ebf3b94d89ad
Tom Roberts, Aug 16, 2010: "As I said before, Special Relativity would
not be affected by a non-zero photon mass, as Einstein's second
postulate is not required in a modern derivation (using group theory
one obtains three related theories, two of which are solidly refuted
experimentally and the third is SR). So today's foundations of modern
physics would not be threatened.
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the
constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the
theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for
it in the theory. (...) We can make a few guesses. There is a
"villain" in the story, who, of course, is Newton."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
Einstein's 1905 light postulate is obsolete, that is, even if it were
false, we would still be able to gloriously deduce Divine Albert's
Divine Special Relativity without referring to this postulate. So
don't even think of looking for counterexamples - in the end your
adventure would collapse in deepest humiliation.
The last words are borrowed from Arthur Eddington's defence against
counterexamples to thermodynamics:
http://web.mit.edu/keenansymposium/overview/background/index.html
Arthur Eddington: "The law that entropy always increases, holds, I
think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone
points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in
disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for
Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation
- well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your
theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics, I can
give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest
humiliation."
The false-but-obsolete-axiom defence has a long history in deductive
science:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/304711/thread/1280739260/last-1280985962/INDISPENSABLE+FALSE+AXIOMS-
Pentcho Valev
New varying speed of light theories
Joao Magueijo
A third clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "In sharp contrast, the
constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term
"heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light
theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the
constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of
modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more
structural damage to physics’ formalism than other varying constant
theories."
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
The farce of physics
Bryan Wallace
A fourth clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "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."
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/membres/in_memoriam/Einstein/Einstein_pdf/Einstein_eloge.pdf
A fifth clue to EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION (Louis de Broglie): "Tout
d'abord toute idée de "grain" se trouvait expulsée de la théorie de la
Lumière : celle-ci prenait la forme d'une "théorie du champ" où le
rayonnement était représenté par une répartition continue dans
l'espace de grandeurs évoluant continûment au cours du temps sans
qu'il fût possible de distinguer, dans les domaines spatiaux au sein
desquels évoluait le champ lumineux, de très petites régions
singulières où le champ serait très fortement concentré et qui
fournirait une image du type corpusculaire. Ce caractère à la fois
continu et ondulatoire de la lumière se trouvait prendre une forme
très précise dans la théorie de Maxwell où le champ lumineux venait se
confondre avec un certain type de champ électromagnétique."