<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Forum

# EINSTEINIANA: UTMOST DISHONESTY

April 4 2011 at 3:14 AM

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions
David Morin, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 11, pp. 38-40:
"Relativity without c. In Section 11.2, we introduced the two postulates of special relativity, namely the speed-of-light postulate and the relativity postulate. Appendix I gives a derivation of the Lorentz transformations that works directly from these two postulates and doesn't use the three fundamental effects, which were the basis of the derivation in Section 11.4.1. It's interesting to see what happens if we relax these postulates. It's hard to imagine a reasonable (empty) universe where the relativity postulate doesn't hold, but it's easy to imagine a universe where the speed of light depends on the reference frame. Light could behave like a baseball, for example. So let's drop the speed-of-light postulate now and see what we can say about the coordinate transformations between frames, using only the relativity postulate. For further discussion of this topic, see (Lee and Kalotas, 1975) and references therein. In Appendix I, the form of the transformations, just prior to invoking the speed-of-light postulate, is given in eq. (15.90) as

x = A(x' + vt'),
t = A(t' + (1/v)(1 - 1/A^2)x') (11.68)

(...) Can we say anything about A without invoking the speed-of-light postulate? Indeed we can. Define V by

1/V^2 = (1/v^2)(1 - 1/A^2) (11.69)

(...) There is therefore only one decision to be made when constructing the spacetime structure of an (empty) universe. You just have to say whether V is finite or infinite, that is, whether the universe is Lorentzian or Galilean."
_________________________________
[end of David Morin's text]

Clearly equations (11.68) are compatible with Newton's emission theory of light ("light could behave like a baseball") if A=1. The emission theory also gives the equation c'=c+v showing how the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the emitter relative to the observer. However the definition (11.69) introduced by David Morin eliminates, purely mathematically, the possibility c'=c+v and the emission theory as a whole. In the end it turns out that the reasonable possibility "V is finite" gloriously leads to Divine Albert's Divine Theory while Newton's emission theory of light infamously accomodates an infinite speed of light.

Blatant lies of this kind are only possible in the era of Postscientism: they are equivalent to the 2+2=5 principle adopted in Big Brother's world:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7.html
George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

More wisdom produced in Einsteiniana and convincing believers that, even if light behaved like a baseball (that is, even if the speed of light varied with the speed of the light source), Divine Albert's Divine Theory "would be unaffected":

http://www.larecherche.fr/content/recherche/article?id=16963
Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Mais l'inutile et depuis longtemps caduc « second postulat » (celui de l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumière) garde encore une place de choix dans les exposés."

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: "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
pvalev@yahoo.com

 Respond to this message
AuthorReply

# Re: EINSTEINIANA: UTMOST DISHONESTY

April 4 2011, 9:33 AM
 The old rat sentenced to death: http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c+v)/(lambda)." http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/fall2008/physics2c/lectures/lecture16.pdf Convention we will choose: u = velocity of observer or source v = velocity of wave Moving Observer Observer approaching: f'=(1/T')=(v+u)/(lambda) Observer receding: f'=(1/T')=(v-u)/(lambda) http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedentes/Expo/Ondes/fichiers%20son/Effet%20Doppler.pdf 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 ! L'observateur se rapproche de la source f' = V'/(lambda) f' = f (1 + Vo/V) L'observateur s'éloigne de la source f' = f (1 - Vo/V) http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/sgift/special_relativity.pdf The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics Stephan J.G. Gift "For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c + v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo > Fo. (...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years." 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://discovermagazine.com/2003/apr/cover "Was Einstein Wrong? What if Einstein was wrong? The day João Magueijo began to doubt Albert Einstein started inauspiciously. It was a rainy winter morning in 1995 at Cambridge University, where Magueijo was a research fellow in theoretical physics. He was tramping across a sodden soccer field, suffering from a hangover and mumbling to himself, when out of the gray a heretical idea brought him to a full stop: What if Einstein was wrong? What if, rather than being forever constant, the speed of light could change? Magueijo stood there in the downpour. What would that mean?" http://www.rense.com/general13/ein.htm Einstein's Theory Of Relativity Must Be Rewritten By Jonathan Leake, Science Editor The Sunday Times - London "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. Magueijo is trying to pick apart one of Einstein's 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 doesn't 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 he's 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." 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.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-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." http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory since its passage has not been captured within modern physical theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us. How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion, an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time." Always reprieving the old rat: http://www.amazon.com/Petit-Prince-French-Language/dp/0156013983 "Hem! Hem! dit le roi, je crois bien que sur ma planète il y a quelque part un vieux rat. Je l'entends la nuit. Tu pourras juger ce vieux rat. Tu le condamneras à mort de temps en temps. Ainsi sa vie dépendra de ta justice. Mais tu le gracieras chaque fois pour l'économiser. Il n'y en a qu'un." http://www.amazon.com/Little-Prince-Antoine-Saint-Exup%C3%A9ry/dp/0156012197 "Hum! Hum!" said the king. "I have good reason to believe that somewhere on my planet there is an old rat. I hear him at night. You can judge this old rat. From time to time you will condemn him to death. Thus his life will depend on your justice. But you will pardon him on each occasion; for he must be treated thriftily. He is the only one we have." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

# Re: EINSTEINIANA: UTMOST DISHONESTY

April 5 2011, 3:43 AM
 Utmost dishonesty in Einsteiniana: According to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer: http://www.brianclegg.net/ http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Infinity-Brian-Clegg/dp/1841196509 http://www.brianclegg.net/Infinity%20Chapters%201-2.pdf Brian Clegg: "If Maxwell was right, and Einstein assumed that he was, light could only continue to exist if it travelled at that one speed. And so Einstein made the remarkable leap of thinking that light would always move at that one particular speed, however fast you moved towards it or alongside it. Where we normally add speeds together when we move towards another moving object, or take speeds away from each other when we travel in the same direction as something else, light is a special case that won't play the game. This idea is at the heart of special relativity..." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE The New York Times, April 19, 1921 "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." http://sfloccari.site.lycee-berthelot.fr/IMG/pdf/Einstein_et_la_relativit_.pdf Françoise BALIBAR: "En effet, lors d'un changement de référentiel à un autre en translation uniforme par rapport à lui, la vitesse de la lumière (appelée ici c) ne devient pas c +V; elle reste c. Cette circonstance, résultat obligé de la théorie de la lumière développée au milieu du XIXè siècle par Maxwell...." http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/oct/18/einstein-relativity-science-book-review "Why Does E=mc^2? by Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw - review (...) By the end of the 19th century, Maxwell had tied together decades of work on electricity and magnetism by, among others, Humphrey Davy and Michael Faraday, to produce his masterful equations on electromagnetism. These showed that light was a wave in the electromagnetic field, much as ripples on a pond are waves in water or sound is a wave in the air. He also showed that these waves of light moved at a constant speed, "c", through empty space and that speed remained the same no matter who was watching. Whether you are sitting still or moving at hundreds of miles an hour towards the source of the light, Maxwell's equations say that the light you see will only ever move at "c" relative to you." http://www.planetastronomy.com/special/2005-special/einst%20balibar%20saf%20mars2005.htm Françoise Balibar: "Maxwell rentre en scène : il pense que la lumière se propage dans un milieu matériel baptisé éther, ce qui est une erreur, mais il pense aussi que la lumière est un champ électromagnétique, ça c'est révolutionnaire. Il met au point ses célèbres équations dans lesquelles la vitesse de la lumière est la même dans l'éther (référentiel absolu) et dans tout autre référentiel en translation uniforme." http://www.diffusion.ens.fr/vip/tableA07.html L'École Normale Supérieure de Paris: "La mécanique newtonienne et la théorie électromagnétique sont contradictoires. En effet, conformément aux lois de la mécanique newtonienne, la vitesse d'une onde lumineuse par rapport au sol, émise par exemple dans un train en mouvement dans le sens de ce mouvement, s'écrit comme la somme de deux vitesses : celle de la lumière additionnée à celle du train. Ainsi, le voyageur qui, dans le train, émet cette onde lumineuse mesure la vitesse de la lumière, alors que sur le quai on mesure la somme de la vitesse de la lumière et de celle du train. Or SELON LA THEORIE ELECTROMAGNETIQUE DE MAXWELL, LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE EST CONSTANTE OU QUE SOIT L'OBSERVATEUR. Cette contradiction a provoqué une tempête et conduit Albert Einstein à formuler en 1905 la théorie de la relativité. Alors que plusieurs physiciens restaient fidèles aux lois de la mécanique newtonienne et essayaient de modifier la théorie de Maxwell, Einstein fait le contraire : il se fonde sur la théorie de Maxwell et modifie les lois de la mécanique. C'est une révolution : la vitesse de la lumière est constante où que soit l'observateur, l'espace et le temps ne sont plus absolus mais dépendent de l'observateur, les durées et les longueurs mesurées aussi." http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/04cd5469771d40db John Baez (quoting Egan): "When Newton was finally overthrown by Einstein, the birth of the new theory owed much less to the astronomical facts it could explain - such as a puzzling drift in the point where Mercury made its closest approach to the sun - than to an elegant theory of electromagnetism that had arisen more or less independently of ideas about gravity. Electrostatic and magnetic effects had been unified by James Clerk Maxwell, but Maxwell's equations only offered one value for the speed of light, however you happened to be moving when you measured it. Making sense of this fact led Einstein first to special relativity, in which the geometry of space-time had the unvarying speed of light built into it, then general relativity, in which the curvature of the same geometry accounted for the motion of objects free-falling through space." Partial honesty in Einsteinana (based on doublethink): According to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light does depend on the speed of the observer: http://www.futura-sciences.com/fr/doc/t/physique/d/relativite-restreinte-et-naissance-de-lespace-temps_509/c3/221/p5/ "Les équations de Maxwell prévoyaient la propagation de la lumière à la vitesse de 300.000 km/s par rapport à l'éther. Or, si l'on cherche à calculer la vitesse de la lumière par rapport à un référentiel qui est lui-même mobile dans l'éther, on observe que la lumière se propage avec une VITESSE DIFFERENTE..." http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/XML/db/csphysique/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://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." 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." http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen 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

# Re: EINSTEINIANA: UTMOST DISHONESTY

April 5 2011, 4:57 AM
 Utmost dishonesty in Einsteiniana: The Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the constancy of the speed of light as postulated in Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions David Morin Cambridge University Press Chapter 11: "The speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame. (...) This is a rather bizarre statement. It doesn't hold for everyday objects. (...) The truth of the speed-of-light postulate cannot be demonstrated from first principles. No statement with any physical content in physics (that is, one that isn't purely mathematical, such as, "two apples plus two apples gives four apples") can be proven. In the end, we must rely on experiment. And indeed, all the consequences of the speed-of-light postulate have been verified countless times during the past century. As discussed in the previous section, the most well-known of the early experiments on the speed of light was the one performed by Michelson and Morley." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE The New York Times, April 19, 1921 "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." http://www.lacosmo.com/relativite.html Christian Magnan: "Le fait que la vitesse de la lumière soit indépendante du système de coordonnées dans lequel on la mesure a eu, on le sait, une importance décisive dans l'invention de la théorie de la relativité. En montrant que cette vitesse de la lumière ne dépendait pas de la direction dans laquelle elle était mesurée, l'expérience de Michelson et Morley (l'article en décrivant le résultat date de 1887) a remis en cause toute la physique classique. Ces physiciens utilisèrent le vaisseau terrestre comme un repère en mouvement. La Terre tourne en effet autour du Soleil à la vitesse d'environ trente kilomètres par seconde. Selon la loi de composition des vitesses façon Galilée les vitesses devaient s'ajouter de sorte que la vitesse de la lumière, poussée en quelque sorte par la vitesse de la Terre, aurait dû être plus grande dans le sens où notre planète avance dans l'espace que dans le sens opposé ou dans le sens perpendiculaire. Mais en répétant les mesures tout au long de l'année, le long de l'orbite terrestre, Michelson et Morley ne détectèrent aucun effet de vitesse. Il fallait construire une théorie dans laquelle la valeur de la vitesse de la lumière s'avèrerait indépendante et de la direction et du repère choisi pour la mesurer." http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_pages/f/fiche-article-la-disparition-du-temps-en-relativite-26042.php Marc Lachièze-Rey: "Mais au cours du XIXe siècle, diverses expériences, et notamment celle de Michelson et Morley, ont convaincu les physiciens que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est invariante. En particulier, la vitesse de la lumière ne s'ajoute ni ne se retranche à celle de sa source si celle-ci est en mouvement." http://philosophie.initiation.cours.over-blog.com/article-la-theorie-de-la-relativite-restreinte-d-albert-einstein-expliquee-48902702.html "A la fin du XIXème siècle, les travaux de deux physiciens, Michelson et Morley, mirent en évidence le constat suivant : quelque soit le référentiel utilisé, la vitesse de la lumière est constante, ce qui est en totale contradiction avec la vision classique ayant cours à leur époque." http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/physique/perso/blanquet/synophys/51relat/51relat.htm Claude SAINT-BLANQUET, Maître de conférences: "Compte tenu des résultats de l'expérience de Michelson et Morley, on doit renoncer à la transformation de Galilée." http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257 Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D. at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States) at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed! Einstein's 1905 special theory of relativity was in part a response to this astonishing result. What Einstein realized was that if c did not change, then something else had to give. That something was the idea of universal and unchanging space and time. This is deeply, maddeningly counterintuitive. In our everyday lives, space and time are perceived as rigid and universal. Instead, Einstein conceived of space and time-space-time-as a thing that could flex and change, expanding and shrinking according to the relative motions of the observer and the thing observed. The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of experiments have verified this basic tenet, and the theory of relativity has become central to our understanding of how the universe works." http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_pages/f/fiche-article-le-creationisme-en-astronomie-aussi-26285.php Alexandre Moatti: "L'expérience de Michelson et Morley, en 1887, en est un premier exemple. Par la mesure des interférences obtenues lors de deux trajets lumineux perpendiculaires (l'un dans le sens Nord-Sud, l'autre dans le sens Est-Ouest, celui du déplacement terrestre), l'expérience aurait dû mettre en évidence sur le trajet Est-Ouest une vitesse de la lumière diminuée de la vitesse de rotation de la Terre autour du Soleil. Il n'en fut rien. Ce résultat négatif a été expliqué en 1905 par la théorie de la relativité restreinte d'Einstein, qui stipule notamment que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est une constante absolue, indépendante de l'observateur et de son mouvement. L'expérience de Michelson et Morley a été répétée depuis un siècle avec des dispositifs de plus en plus précis, et a toujours donné un résultat négatif, confirmant la théorie de la relativité." http://www.erudit.org/culture/liberte1026896/liberte1430666/59825ac.pdf Hubert Reeves: "Historiquement, tout a commencé lorsque, vers 1880, deux physiciens, Michelson et Morley, obtinrent après une expérience célèbre un résultat parfaitement irréconciliable avec les théories de la physique contemporaine. L'existence de ce résultat provoqua dans le monde de la physique un malaise qui dura plusieurs années. Nombre de physiciens s'efforcèrent de réconcilier la théorie avec l'expérience, certains allant même jusqu'à supposer l'existence d'une conspiration de la nature contre les physiciens. En 1905, le jeune Einstein reprit le problème à neuf, et proposa d'établir en principe fondamental de la physique l'inéluctable et malencontreux résultat de Michelson et Morley. Sur ce principe on rebâtirait toute la physique, et on réévaluerait les idées acceptées à la lumière de leur compatibilité avec ce principe. De là est née la théorie de la relativité. Ce principe est le suivant : si un observateur mesure la vitesse de la lumière provenant d'une source lumineuse, il trouvera toujours la même valeur, soit 186,000 milles à la seconde (vitesse qu'on appelle la vitesse c) quel que soit l'état de mouvement de la source. En d'autres mots, que la source s'approche on s'éloigne de moi, sa lumière vient toujours vers moi avec la même vitesse. Que cet énoncé, en apparence anodin, puisse avoir des conséquences assez étranges, on le verra facilement par l'exemple suivant : je considère une source qui s'éloigne de moi avec une vitesse voisine de c (la vitesse de la lumière) ; à première vue, je suis porté à raisonner comme ceci : la lumière qui vient de la source vers moi aura peine à me ratrapper et me parviendra grandement ralentie. Notre principe, basé sur l'expérience, affirme que la vitesse de la lumière est toujours, là comme ailleurs, égale à c." 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." http://205.188.238.109/time/time100/poc/magazine/a_brief_history_of_rela6a.html 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." Partial honesty in Einsteiniana (based on doublethink): The Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the variability of the speed of light as postulated in Newton's emission theory of light: 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." http://www.amazon.fr/Introduction-relativit%C3%A9-James-Hammond-Smith/dp/B000YZAES4/ Introduction à la relativité James Hammond Smith (Auteur), Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond (Auteur), Philippe Brenier (Auteur), Guy Plaut (Auteur) "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day." 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." http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen 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

# Re: EINSTEINIANA: UTMOST DISHONESTY

April 5 2011, 9:11 AM
 A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer). Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer). Is c' equal to c or is c' different from c? That is, is Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate correct or not? No priest in Einsteiniana would directly answer this fatal question - the crimestop is absolute in this case: http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen 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." Still Einsteiniana's priests find it safe to use, in calculations, the correct answer to the fatal question: The correct answer: c'>c as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Consider equation (13.2) on p. 3 in David Morin's text: http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) (13.2) where v is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment of emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception) in the rocket scenario. By combining this equation with: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength) we obtain THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT: c' = c+v = c(1+gh/c^2) which CONTRADICT EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE. Einstein explicitly used the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) in the period 1907-1915, then replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2), which means that in any version of Einstein's general relativity we have c'>c. David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in: http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions David Morin, Cambridge University Press Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

# Re: EINSTEINIANA: UTMOST DISHONESTY

April 6 2011, 3:01 AM
 Utmost dishonesty in Einsteiniana: "If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed": http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html Chapter 14 (http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF): David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168 Stephen Hawking: "Another prediction of general relativity is that time should appear to slower near a massive body like the earth. This is because there is a relation between the energy of light and its frequency (that is, the number of waves of light per second): the greater the energy, the higher frequency. As light travels upward in the earths gravitational field, it loses energy, and so its frequency goes down. (This means that the length of time between one wave crest and the next goes up.) To someone high up, it would appear that everything down below was making longer to happen. This prediction was tested in 1962, using a pair of very accurate clocks mounted at the top and bottom of a water tower. The clock at the bottom, which was nearer the earth, was found to run slower, in exact agreement with general relativity." The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 2, Chapter 42-6: Richard Feynman: "Suppose we put a clock at the "head" of the rocket ship - that is, at the front end - and we put another identical clock at the "tail," as in fig. 42-16. Let's call the two clocks A and B. If we compare these two clocks when the ship is accelerating, the clock at the head seems to run fast relative to the one at the tail. To see that, imagine that the front clock emits a flash of light each second, and that you are sitting at the tail comparing the arival of the light flashes with the ticks of clock B. (...) The first flash travels the distance L1 and the second flash travels the shorter distance L2. It is a shorter distance because the ship is acelerating and has a higher speed at the time of the second flash. You can see, then, that if the two flashes were emitted from clock A one second apart, they would arrive at clock B with a separation somewhat less than one second, since the second flash doesn't spend as much time on the way." http://www-cosmosaf.iap.fr/RELATIVIT%C3%89%20par%20DAMOUR%20Thibault.htm Thibault Damour: "D'un point de vue plus général, puisque la fréquence d'une raie spectrale définit une "horloge" à l'échelle atomique, le principe d'équivalence prédit l'existence d'une dilatation gravitationnelle des durées lors de la comparaison de deux horloges situées à des niveaux de potentiel gravitationnel différents." http://www.liberation.fr/sciences/010971203-la-quete-des-temps Etienne Klein: "Mais pour la relativité générale d'Einstein, l'espace et le temps sont déformés par les objets qu'ils contiennent. Ainsi le temps ne s'écoule pas de la même façon au voisinage d'une étoile très dense qu'à proximité d'une planète." http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/01/opinion/the-time-we-thought-we-knew.html Brian Greene: "In the early part of the 20th century, however, Albert Einstein saw through nature's Newtonian facade and revealed that the passage of time depends on circumstance and environment. He showed that the wristwatches worn by two individuals moving relative to one another, or experiencing different gravitational fields, tick off time at different rates. The passage of time, according to Einstein, is in the eye of the beholder. (...) Rudolf Carnap, the philosopher, recounts Einstein's telling him that ''the experience of the now means something special for man, something essentially different from the past and the future, but this important difference does not and cannot occur within physics.'' And later, in a condolence letter to the widow of Michele Besso, his longtime friend and fellow physicist, Einstein wrote: ''In quitting this strange world he has once again preceded me by just a little. That doesn't mean anything. For we convinced physicists the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent.'' (...) Now, however, modern physics' notion of time is clearly at odds with the one most of us have internalized. Einstein greeted the failure of science to confirm the familiar experience of time with ''painful but inevitable resignation.'' The developments since his era have only widened the disparity between common experience and scientific knowledge. Most physicists cope with this disparity by compartmentalizing: there's time as understood scientifically, and then there's time as experienced intuitively. For decades, I've struggled to bring my experience closer to my understanding. In my everyday routines, I delight in what I know is the individual's power, however imperceptible, to affect time's passage. In my mind's eye, I often conjure a kaleidoscopic image of time in which, with every step, I further fracture Newton's pristine and uniform conception. And in moments of loss I've taken comfort from the knowledge that all events exist eternally in the expanse of space and time, with the partition into past, present and future being a useful but subjective organization." Partial honesty in Einsteiniana (based on doublethink): When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show THE SAME time elapsed: http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-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." http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050328/full/news050328-8.html Philip Ball: "In general relativity, there is no such thing as a 'universal time' that makes clocks tick at the same rate everywhere. Instead, gravity makes clocks run at different rates in different places. But quantum mechanics, which describes physical phenomena at infinitesimally small scales, is meaningful only if time is universal; if not, its equations make no sense." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html "General relativity knits together space, time and gravity. Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France. (...) 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." http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory since its passage has not been captured within modern physical theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us. How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion, an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time." http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen 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

# Re: EINSTEINIANA: UTMOST DISHONESTY

April 7 2011, 3:13 AM
 Utmost dishonesty in Einsteiniana: "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.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.amazon.co.uk/Plus-vite-lumi%C3%A8re-Jo%C3%A3o-Magueijo/dp/2100072471 Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIÈRE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 50-51: "En cours de route, en 1911, Einstein proposa même une théorie où la vitesse de la lumière variait! Aujourd'hui, les scientifiques sont soit horrifiés par cette article écrit par le grand Albert Einstein, alors professeur à Prague, soit tout simplement ignorants de son existence. Banesh Hoffmann, collègue et biographe d'Einstein, décrit ce texte de la manière suivante: "Et cela signifie... Quoi! Que la vitesse de la lumière n'est pas constante, que la gravitation la ralentit. Hérésie! Et de la part d'Einstein lui-même." http://www.amazon.fr/gp/product/2738117228/ref=pd_rvi_gw_1/402-2668551-5396107 Alexandre Moatti (p. 140): "La théorie corpusculaire se heurtait toutefois à une contradiction expérimentale de taille : elle impliquait que la lumière fût non seulement déviée mais aussi ralentie par un champ de gravitation (comme le serait un faisceau de corpuscules), alors que toutes les mesures donnaient une constance de la vitesse de la lumière, indépendante de la vitesse de la source, et indépendante de toute masse gravitationnelle à côté de laquelle elle passerait !" 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." http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html "Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole? Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light. But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light (gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight" is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still constant." Dr. Eric Christian Partial honesty in Einsteiniana (based on doublethink): A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon will also be slowed down (the acceleration is exactly the same, established by Newton's emission theory of light). This partial honesty is transient: Einstein stuck to it in the period 1907-1914 but then, in 1915, in an attempt to outdo Newton, he doubled the acceleration of photons leaving the acceleration of cannonballs unchanged: 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." 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.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." http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR." 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." http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen 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

# Re: EINSTEINIANA: UTMOST DISHONESTY

April 7 2011, 9:13 AM
 Utmost dishonesty in Einsteiniana: http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100506/NEWS02/5060364/-1/NEWSMAP "Robert Pound, a Harvard physicist whose elegant experiments confirmed a key part of Albert Einstein's theory of relativity and who helped lay the groundwork for the magnetic resonance imaging technology now widely used in medicine, died April 12 at a nursing home in Belmont, Mass. He was 90. (...) He first made a name for himself with his 1959 studies validating Einstein's theory that gravitation can change the frequency of light, a phenomenon known as gravitational red shift. Most physicists agreed that the eminent theoretician was right, but assumed that a proof would require monitoring light over great distances, perhaps with a satellite. Pound and his graduate student, Glen A. Rebka Jr., were able to demonstrate the theory's validity with a 75-foot tower." An emitter on top of a tower of height h sends light towards the ground. The light reaches the ground with speed c'=c(1+gh/c^2) according to Newton's emission theory of light, and with speed c'=c(1+2gh/c^2) according to Einstein's final version of general relativity. In 1959 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift factor to be 1+gh/c^2. In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world this experimental result would have confirmed Newton's emission theory of light and refuted Einstein's final version of general relativity. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world any experiment gloriously confirms Divine Albert's Divine Theory and refutes any other theory. Einsteinians never mention Newton's emission theory of light when discussing the Pound-Rebka experiment: http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen 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

# Re: EINSTEINIANA: UTMOST DISHONESTY

April 9 2011, 4:57 AM
 http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/apr/06/astronomer-royal-martin-rees-interview "Ian Sample spoke to the astronomer royal Martin Rees on Tuesday before the announcement that he had won the Templeton Prize. (...) Martin Rees wins controversial £1m Templeton prize. (...) Ian Sample: Congratulations on the award. Martin Rees: Thank you. IS: Were you already a millionaire? MR: Sorry? IS: Were you already a millionaire? MR: No comment." So Martin Rees is a happy millionaire. He would not be a happy millionaire if he had "rewritten" Divine Albert's Divine Theory and especially if he had refuted "Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same": http://www.rense.com/general13/ein.htm Einstein's Theory Of Relativity Must Be Rewritten By Jonathan Leake, Science Editor The Sunday Times - London "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." Herbert Dingle and Bryan Wallace were not happy millionaires. They died in oblivion: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v183/n4677/abs/1831761a0.html Nature 183, 1761 (20 June 1959) Herbert Dingle: "AS is well known, Einstein's special theory of relativity rests on two postulates: (1) the postulate of relativity; (2) the postulate of constant light velocity, which says "that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body". For the first postulate there is much experimental support; for the second, none." http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_Crossroads.pdf Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS "According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B, in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible effects of accleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?" http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?1959MNRAS.119...67D&defaultprint=YES&filetype=.pdf Herbert Dingle: "...the internal consistency of the restricted relativity theory seems questionable if the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light is given its usual interpretation... (...) These difficulties are removed if the postulate be interpreted MERELY as requiring that the velocity of light relative to its actual material source shall always be c..." http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_215.pdf Herbert Dingle: "The special relativity theory requires different rates of ageing to result from motion which belongs no more to one twin than to the other: that is impossible. It is impossible to exaggerate the importance of this result, for this theory is, by common consent, "taken for granted" in Max Born's words, in all modern atomic research. and it determines the course of practically all current developments in physical science, theoretical and experimental, whether concerned with the laboratory or with the universe. To continue to use the theory without discrimination, therefore, is not only to follow a false trail in the investigation of nature, but also to risk physical disaster on the unforeseeable scale... (...) But it is now clear that the interpretation of those [Lorentz] equations as constituting a basis for a new kinematics, displacing that of Galileo and Newton, which is the essence of the special relativity theory, leads inevitably to impossibilities and therefore cannot be true. Either there is an absolute standard of rest - call it the ether as with Maxwell. or the universe as with Mach, or absolute space as with Newton, or what you will or else ALL MOTION, INCLUDING THAT WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT, IS RELATIVE, AS WITH RITZ. It remains to be determined, by a valid experimental determination of THE TRUE RELATION OF THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT TO THAT OF ITS SOURCE, which of these alternatives is the true one. In the meantime, the fiction of "space-time" as an objective element of nature, and the associated pseudo-concepts such as "time-dilation", that violate "saving common sense", should be discharged from physics and philosophy..." http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/24/2063601/physics/SpecLetters1969-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." [Bryan Wallace wrote "The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the text!] Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
 Current Topic - EINSTEINIANA: UTMOST DISHONESTY Respond to this message
 << Previous Topic | Next Topic >> Return to Forum
 Copyright © 1999-2013 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement