# THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 23 2012 at 1:06 AM

The observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v so the frequency he measures shifts from f to f' and the speed of light he measures shifts from c to c'. f'=? c'=?

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow, Professor of Particle Physics: "Moving Observer. 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)."

We also have f'=c'/(lambda), so c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's special relativity.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

 Respond to this message
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 23 2012, 8:17 AM
 what should be pointed out though is- that is the way they should be handling it But the Einstein-zombies do go and mess things up.

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 23 2012, 6:26 PM
 Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as cannonballs. Does this imply that, in a gravitation-free space, the speed of light (as measured by the observer) varies with the speed of the observer as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, that is, in accordance with the equation c'=c+v? ANSWER: The speed of cannonballs shot downwards with initial speed V (relative to the shooter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation V'=V(1+gh/V^2) (it is assumed that V>>(V'-V) and air friction is ignored). If the cannonball is shot from top to bottom in an elevator of height h accelerating, in gravitation-free space, with constant acceleration g, then the bottom has acquired speed v=gh/V when it meets the cannonball. Accordingly, the speed of the cannonball as measured at the bottom is V'=V(1+gh/V^2)=V+v. If, in a gravitational field, the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does, then the speed of a light signal emitted downwards with initial speed c (relative to the emitter) varies with the gravitational potential (gh) in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2). If the signal is emitted from top to bottom in an elevator of height h accelerating, in gravitation-free space, with constant acceleration g, then the bottom has acquired speed v=gh/c when it meets the signal. Accordingly, the speed of the signal as measured at the bottom is c'=c(1+gh/c^2)=c+v. The equation c'=c+v is fatal for Einstein's relativity. In the context of the above argument, its truth entirely depends on the PREMISE: "Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as cannonballs" If the PREMISE is true, the equation c'=c+v is true. If not, not. Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
Anonymous

# the tired cannon ball absolute pseudo galilean old fart theory

May 24 2012, 6:02 AM
 This is not a refutation, except for insane people. The argument does not claim any disagrement between SR and experience. On the other hand, the proposed alternative is not tested in full detail. At the least, the well know list of SR and GR tests should be adressed by alternative theories. The canon ball hypothesis has not been screened like SR and GR have been. Probably the proponents lack the competence to do so. They will say they lack the support, the money. Actually they lack competence and energy (these old farts). In addition, the canon ball theory in itself is not supposed to replace the whole SR and GR theory. At least the canon balls theory must also include tiredness, according to the tired light alternative theory. A lot of unification needs to be done in the alternative theories!! It is even not sure they are not contradictory. And of course, they have not been tested except as a laughting mean. Let's give them a good name: the tired cannon ball absolute pseudo galilean old fart theory
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 24 2012, 6:11 AM
 >>.This is not a refutation you are just in denial because it you that is insane

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 24 2012, 8:33 AM
 http://online.physics.uiuc.edu/courses/phys419/spring10/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." IMPLICATION 1: Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as cannonballs. IMPLICATION 2: The Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the variation of the speed of light with the gravitational potential predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Earlier I showed that, if the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential as predicted by the emission theory, then in gravitation-free space it varies with the speed of the observer again as predicted by the emission theory. The fundamental equations of Newton's emission theory of light: c' = c(1 + gh/c^2) = c + v Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com
Anonymous

# Pentcho Valev is an "if man"

May 24 2012, 11:59 AM
 This is the kind of reasoning by Mr "if man": If I do that, and if I do this, I can reproduce the same result than relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. Mr "if man" thinks he is the center of the world and therefore he must be right. The problem is that relativity can explain much more than his canon ball theory can. His canon ball theory still needs to be unified with his tired light theory. This is now becoming really grotesque and childish. Pentcho Valev is a real retarded: he lives in the past.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 24 2012, 12:05 PM
 >>>If I do that, and if I do this, I can reproduce the same result [as] relativity. Therefore relativity is wrong. The relevant reasoning is really - If I do that, and if I do this, AND I can reproduce the same result IN THE CONTEXT OF NEWTONIAN PHYSICS as EINSTEIN'S relativity. THEN THERE WAS NO NEED TO MAKE THE CHANGE FROM NEWTONIAN PHYSICS TO EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY. THEREFORE THE CHANGE WAS A MISTAKE.
Anonymous

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 24 2012, 3:08 PM
 "The relevant reasoning is really - If I do that, and if I do this, AND I can reproduce the same result IN THE CONTEXT OF NEWTONIAN PHYSICS as EINSTEIN'S relativity. THEN THERE WAS NO NEED TO MAKE THE CHANGE FROM NEWTONIAN PHYSICS TO EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY. THEREFORE THE CHANGE WAS A MISTAKE. " You are really an *******. Relativity fits much more experimental results that the canon ball theory. Canon ball theory is just a folkloric curiosity that fails 99% of the tests where relativity succeeds. The canon ball theory fails in particular for all the tests tests involving clocks. No surprise you and you likes either never talk about it or pretend these were fake experiments from a conspiration of relativists. No surprise you need capital letters to try to convince a few monkeys. Changing is not a mistake. Changing was the simplest way, and the most logical way, to reconciles the inconsistencies known at that time. You are a real idiot. You are not better at history than at physics. You apparently don't know the logical inconsistencies that motivated the physicists before 1905, as well as before 1915. You are all the time talking about nonsense in relativity, while you seem to ignore the nonsense that prevailed before. (I use your common word "nonsense", where I actually mean difficulty) In addition you also ignore that relativity is fully compatible with earlier theories when the speeds and fields are small enough. And of course you also ignore that it predicts deviations from the older theories, depending accordingly on the speeds and fields.
Anonymous

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 24 2012, 3:25 PM
 Pentcho Valev: The equation c'=c+v is fatal for Einstein's relativity Johannes: Actually the equation c'=c+v is not fatal for Einstein's relativity. Special relativity does not handle gravity. General relativity does handle gravity and the speed of light a function of the gravitational field and therefore NOT global constant. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay
Anonymous

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 24 2012, 3:57 PM
 Don't try to explain anything to anon and Pentcho Valev. You would be talking to sand.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 24 2012, 4:43 PM
 >>>You would be talking to sand. thats where you have stuck your head in
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 24 2012, 4:45 PM
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 24 2012, 4:54 PM
 >>>Relativity fits much more experimental results that the canon ball theory. you are talking rubbish, the canon ball theory is really the particle theory and by Quantum mechanics we have wave/particle duality hence particle model still works. You are extremely stupid. >>The canon ball theory fails in particular for all the tests tests involving clocks. you can put clocks on canon balls if really wanted to, so you are just talking nonsense >>>Changing is not a mistake. Changing was the simplest way, and the most logical way, to reconciles the inconsistencies known at that time. the inconsistencies were not solved. if they were solved state what they are and prove they were solved.

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 24 2012, 5:01 PM
 >>>Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay >>>says this article needs attention, good article NOT. I agree, but there are other sources... http://www.relativity.li/en/epstein2/read/i0_en/i3_en/
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 24 2012, 5:41 PM
 >>>I agree I think you didn't really mean to do that. If we go to your source its - David Eckstein. I am sure that if I dug around, got a few quotes from him I could show that he was saying something different to what others are saying. So why believe what he says over what some other supposed relativity expert says?
Johannes

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 24 2012, 5:53 PM
 >>>> I think you didn't really mean to do that. With "I agree", I meant that I agree with your statement "says this article needs attention, good article NOT."

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 24 2012, 6:08 PM
 >>>> So why believe what he says over what some other supposed relativity expert says? Can you be more specific? What does David Eckstein say that is different what others say?
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 24 2012, 8:00 PM
 Whats going on, are you giving a name to yourself? >>Can you be more specific? What does David Eckstein say that is different what others say? David Eckstein says a lot and I am sure I can dig something up.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 24 2012, 8:42 PM
 Ok lets have go at bringing what Eckstein says into doubt - his thinking is based on Epstein diagrams, and he admits they are not being taken seriously. What these diagrams supposed to give is that everyone in their frame moves at c. Now thats contrary to existing things said in special relativity about matter can't go at lightspeed. So we have a split in his chain of thinking from how the existing is, so how are you going to cope with that? Of course its been pointed out many times that Einsteinians say 1=2, so are you going to embrace saying matter does not go at c means matter goes at c, or some other Einsteinian-zombie nonsense. Or are you going to accept that what Eckstein is giving is just his opinion and its not as per existing special relativity? At the end of the day, what do I care as to what you want to believe, far as I am concerned its just the usual contradictions.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 5:07 AM
 >>>>What these diagrams supposed to give is that everyone in their frame moves at c Where is this written?
Anonymous

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 6:40 AM
 "if they were solved state what they are and prove they were solved. " (anon) I am not supposed to teach you relativity. You pretend to know it all about relativity, at least well enough to consider it is rubbish. So ****, **** the rabbits.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 9:27 AM
 so basically you just want to make unsubstantiated claims. that is what the Einstein-zombies are doing. Given one unsubstantiated claim by an Einstein-zombie I can show that another Einstein-zombie is making the opposite claim. That makes what they are saying as rubbish as far as I am concerned.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 9:47 AM
 I have gone through the effort of learning relativity, attended the lectures done the discussions and come away thinking yes I understand relativity. But then you find that different supposed experts are saying different to what was taught. So it becomes a question of who is right. And thats not addressed, hnece its nonsense. If it was sensible then they would all be making the same claims, but they are not, so its not. So now I am more sceptical. This Eckstein who's agreeing with him and why should we go by what he says as opposed to someone else? If you don't substantiate your claims you are just wasting my time and everyone else.
Johannes

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 3:18 PM
 What most people do not realize is that the origin of Special Relativity comes from the Maxwell equations. 1. The Maxwell equations imply the Lorentz transformations. 2. The Lorentz transformations imply the constancy of light in any inertial frame. 3. The constancy of light in any inertial frame is the second postulate of relativity. To claim that Special Relativity is wrong is to claim that Maxwell equations are wrong. Every electronic device that we use today is based on the Maxwell equations. I have no problem that people say that Special Relativity is wrong; I like the contradictions that are pointed out. But I have never seen anyone who claims that Special Relativity is wrong and proposes an alternative. Where are the alternatives that are supported by experiment?
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 3:40 PM
 Newtonian physics has a wide range of applications, why change that instead of change Maxwell's equations?
Johannes

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 4:42 PM
 >>>>Newtonian physics has a wide range of applications, why change that instead of change Maxwell's equations? A great question - yet history has already selected the path, that however does not justify the path being taken. First: Newtonian Physics REMAINS valid for small velocities and small gravitational fields within the theory of (general) relativity. The difference lies in small perturbations. So accepting (general) relativity does not reject Newtonian physics within the range that we see it in our dayly life. Second: As for the statement "Newtonian physics has a wide range of applications"; relativity has a wider range of applications. As for the "change Maxwell's equations": You might search for "Weber Electrodynamics" or for "surpressed law of weber". Weber electrodynamics is consistant with Newtonian physics, yet for some reason, Maxwell did not accepted Weber Electrodynamics. Basicaly because Neumann showed that a force that depends on velocity does violate the conservation of energy. The reason however that this does not apply to Weber electrodynamics is that the Weber electrodynamical forces depends on BOTH velocity and acceleration. Weber electrodynamics does allow conservation of energy, yet Maxwell rejected it. There is however a counterpart; Newtonian physics does not explain the perhelion motion of planets nor gives the correct value for the bending of light due to a massive body. However, the bottom line is this: Anyone has the freedom to reject relativity. Claiming that it is not correct due to contradictions, whatever, I can accept and understand. However, nobody who does reject relatvitiy comes with an alternative that is consistent with observation.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 5:09 PM
 >>>First: Newtonian Physics REMAINS valid for small velocities and small gravitational fields within the theory of (general) relativity. you are making a claim that is false, it is valid whatever
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 5:51 PM
 Let's have a look at where some Einsteinians go wrong: May 25 2012 at 5:50 PM anon Let's have a look at where some Einsteinians go wrong: Einstein's Relativity, by Paul Lasky Paul Lasky says: Somewhat counter-intuitively, general relativity asserts that gravity is not a force. Instead, it is the result of objects travelling the shortest possible distance between any two points in a curved geometry. This is not the three-dimensional geometry of space, but that of four-dimensional space-time (i.e. one time plus three space dimensions). from http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/24/catching_einsteins_gravitational_waves_106276.html So Lasky says gravity is not a force. Well force is mass x acceleration, acceleration is given to us by gravity, so an object with mass experiences acceleration and that is force. So does Lasky tells us nonsense that an object with mass won't feel acceleration in earth's gravity?? He says instead its spacetime curvature; but how would we feel that spacetime curvature; answer as a force of course. Instead of saying his nonsense, it would have been better said according to general relativity gravity is spacetime curvature which we experience as a force.
Johannes

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 6:11 PM
 >>>>you are making a claim that is false, it is valid whatever The claim is confirmed by observation. Newtonian physics is not valid for perhelium motion of planets nor for bending of light due to a large mass. If you disagree then calculate both perhelium motion and bending of light due to a large mass based on newtonian physics.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 7:21 PM
 you calculate it I pointed out spacetime curvature is experienced by us as a force. so do the maths by Riemann geometry and there is no reason why it should not be interpreted by Newtonian physics.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 7:22 PM
 Let's have a look at where some Einsteinians go wrong: May 25 2012 at 5:50 PM anon Let's have a look at where some Einsteinians go wrong: Einstein's Relativity, by Paul Lasky Paul Lasky says: Somewhat counter-intuitively, general relativity asserts that gravity is not a force. Instead, it is the result of objects travelling the shortest possible distance between any two points in a curved geometry. This is not the three-dimensional geometry of space, but that of four-dimensional space-time (i.e. one time plus three space dimensions). from http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/24/catching_einsteins_gravitational_waves_106276.html So Lasky says gravity is not a force. Well force is mass x acceleration, acceleration is given to us by gravity, so an object with mass experiences acceleration and that is force. So does Lasky tells us nonsense that an object with mass won't feel acceleration in earth's gravity?? He says instead its spacetime curvature; but how would we feel that spacetime curvature; answer as a force of course. Instead of saying his nonsense, it would have been better said according to general relativity gravity is spacetime curvature which we experience as a force.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 7:40 PM
 When physicists talk about the relationship of General Relativity to Mercurys perihelion they always repeat standard physics mythology without applying even the smallest amount of scientific skepticism to it. But even a superficial questioning of physicists interpretation of the precession of Mercurys perihelion reveals that we are faced with a cargo cult. In general, any statement that claims that General Relativity predicts a natural phenomena is a lie. Einsteins general theory of relativity is a rubric for an immense collection of statements. Rubrics cannot make quantitative predictions. To say that general relativity predicts correctly the perihelion of mercury is as meaningful as saying that English language predicts that tomorrow it will rain. Same thing. fromhttp://densytics.com/2008/10/27/mercurys-perihelion-and-einsteins-general-relativity/ So do a little maths - how are you going to show its general relativity and not Newtonian physics?
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 7:41 PM
 >>>Newtonian physics is not valid for perhelium motion of planets nor for bending of light due to a large mass. show why; put up or shut up; you state just myth

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 7:59 PM
 "Newtonian physics is not valid for perhelium motion of planets nor for bending of light due to a large mass." Actually, it's more than valid, Anonym! Just take a look at this as an example: "A bending of light as it skimmed the surface of the sun was calculated by Johann George von Soldner and published in 1803": http://www.frankrusso.net/bendlight.html And this ONE must be the top of the cake: "INCONSISTENCIES IN RADAR DISTANCES TO VENUS Dr. Bryan G. Wallace": http://bourabai.kz/wallace/farce06.htm
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 8:08 PM
 just maths as far as I am concerned - there is a philosophical issue that physicists pretend does not exist, namely how to interpret that maths. and so they do some maths and make false claims such as this bit of maths is Einsteinian and this other bit is Newtonian Newtonian calculation is supposed to give half bendng of light, and Einsteinian give double. But all double means from Newtonian perspective is that there is double the force causing the bending, does not mean its no longer Newtonian.
Johannes

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 8:28 PM
 >>>>Actually, it's more than valid, Anonym! Just take a look at this as an example: True - but the newtonian value is not what is observed - so not consistant with observation.
Anonymous

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 8:30 PM
 >>>>But all double means from Newtonian perspective is that there is double the force causing the bending, does not mean its no longer Newtonian. Doubling the force would violate the observed motion of planets - so it would not solve a thing.
Johannes

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 8:34 PM
 >>>>I pointed out spacetime curvature is experienced by us as a force. You misinterpreted newton, newton never wrote anything like "force is mass x acceleration", I quote from Newton his work: The alteration of motion is ever proportional to the motive force impressed ; and is made in the direction of the right line in. which that force is impressed.
Johannes

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 8:41 PM
 >>>>so do the maths by Riemann geometry and there is no reason why it should not be interpreted by Newtonian physics. Do the math starting with Newton and you would get the observed result.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 9:08 PM
 so it is Newtonian
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 9:10 PM
 >>>newton never wrote anything like "force is mass x acceleration", I quote from Newton his work No need to quote. Newtonian physics uses force, those who came after Newton were the Newtonians.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 9:12 PM
 >>>Doubling the force would violate the observed motion of planets talking of the force causing the bending not the force on the planets, pay attention.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 9:43 PM
 spacetime curvature greater near sun than farther out so corresponds to greater force there
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 25 2012, 9:45 PM
 Let's have a look at where some Einsteinians go wrong: May 25 2012 at 5:50 PM anon Let's have a look at where some Einsteinians go wrong: Einstein's Relativity, by Paul Lasky Paul Lasky says: Somewhat counter-intuitively, general relativity asserts that gravity is not a force. Instead, it is the result of objects travelling the shortest possible distance between any two points in a curved geometry. This is not the three-dimensional geometry of space, but that of four-dimensional space-time (i.e. one time plus three space dimensions). from http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/05/24/catching_einsteins_gravitational_waves_106276.html So Lasky says gravity is not a force. Well force is mass x acceleration, acceleration is given to us by gravity, so an object with mass experiences acceleration and that is force. So does Lasky tells us nonsense that an object with mass won't feel acceleration in earth's gravity?? He says instead its spacetime curvature; but how would we feel that spacetime curvature; answer as a force of course. Instead of saying his nonsense, it would have been better said according to general relativity gravity is spacetime curvature which we experience as a force.
Jerry

# why can't you understand?

May 25 2012, 11:05 PM
 This comment is unbelievable. You know well that astronauts do not feel any force when in orbit. The gravitational force is balanced by the centrifugal force. So bodies in orbit follow geodesic lines. The model of curved space-time is correct. For once please comprehend this simple fact.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 6:10 AM
 Having forces balancing themselves out means the forces are still there
Anonymous

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 6:54 AM
 The more anon writes, the more it reveals his shortcomings.
Johannes

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 7:06 AM
 >>>>talking of the force causing the bending not the force on the planets, pay attention. S0 now there are TWO forces - one for the bending of light and one for the planets? Then relativity is better for it only uses one "force"
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 7:23 AM
 >>>Then relativity is better for it only uses one "force" ah but you admit then that it uses force then, because thats Newtonian physics >>>S0 now there are TWO forces - one for the bending of light and one for the planets? not quite, the spacetime curvature is greater nearer the sun, the farther away it gets less, tending towards what is called flat spacetime. Spacetime curvature in Newtonian terms means the force, so according to that - the force is greater nearer the sun. Still dealing with force and that is concept of Newtonian physics so still dealing with Newtonian physics.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 7:26 AM
 >>>The more anon writes sadly there is no hope for you when you believe 1 =2. If we trusted buildings to you then would fall down if you believed forces went away when they were balanced.
Johannes

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 7:36 AM
 >>>>ah but you admit then that it uses force then, because thats Newtonian physics No, if wrote it as "force"
Anonymous

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 7:41 AM
 >>>>not quite, the spacetime curvature is greater nearer the sun, the farther away it gets less, tending towards what is called flat spacetime. Spacetime curvature in Newtonian terms means the force, so according to that - the force is greater nearer the sun. Still dealing with force and that is concept of Newtonian physics so still dealing with Newtonian physics. Not at all. When using relativity there are two different kind of geodesic lines, light ds=0 (null-geodesic) and matter ds0 they give two different equations, one for bending of light and one for the motion of planets, both following from the curvature of spacetime. You cannot describe both bending of light (in the correct amount) and the motions of planets with a single force-equation.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 7:41 AM
 talking of force can be a problem in that a force can split into being composed of smaller forces
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 7:41 AM
 force May 26 2012 at 7:40 AM anon According to Science Daily: Theories of the physics of gravity were first developed by Isaac Newton in 1687 and refined by Albert Einsteins theory of General Relativity in 1916 which stated that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light. However, Einstein was never fully decided on whether his equation should add an omnipresent constant source, now called dark energy in general. Fromhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080131094056.htm several points now to raise- Newtonian physics deals with forces. Einstein being claimed to refine that theory No reason why that refinement has given up on the idea of forces Einsteinians thinking of adding extra bit called dark energy whose effect is just that of an extra force So process is to just keep adding extra force, its still Newtonian physics in that context.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 7:45 AM
 >>using relativity there are two different kind of geodesic lines, light ds=0 (null-geodesic) and matter ds0 they give two different equations, they can be treated as same equation ds= 0 case when flat spacetime, as get farther away from source of gravity then spaectime is said to tend to getting flat
Anonymous

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 9:45 AM
 >>>>they can be treated as same equation ds= 0 case when flat spacetime Nope, the equation is (ds)^2 = g[pq] dx[q] dx[q] (the text mode does not allow to write it nice) flat or not flat has to do with g[pq]; flat gives g[pq]=[1,-1,-1,-1] thus (ds)^2 = c^2 (dt)^2 - (dx)^2 - (dy)^2 - (dz)^2 ds = 0 or ds != 0 has to do with light and matter.
Anonymous

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 9:50 AM
 >>>>No reason why that refinement has given up on the idea of forces The idea of forces has alread "given up" in classical physics; Lagranges formalism describes the motion of bodies using action, not forces. The idea of using action is common in physics. The action is minimum along the path taken. Optics: action is 1/v Classical physics: action is L = T - V General Relativity: action is g[pq] (dx[p]/ds) (dx[q]/ds) Electromagnetics: action is F[pq] F[pq] and so on.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 10:26 AM
 >>>(ds)^2 = c^2 (dt)^2 - (dx)^2 - (dy)^2 - (dz)^2 is =0 for flat of special relativity
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 10:27 AM
 >>>The idea of forces has alread "given up" in classical physics; no can still be used
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 10:27 AM
 force May 26 2012 at 7:40 AM anon According to Science Daily: Theories of the physics of gravity were first developed by Isaac Newton in 1687 and refined by Albert Einsteins theory of General Relativity in 1916 which stated that the speed of gravity is equal to the speed of light. However, Einstein was never fully decided on whether his equation should add an omnipresent constant source, now called dark energy in general. Fromhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080131094056.htm several points now to raise- Newtonian physics deals with forces. Einstein being claimed to refine that theory No reason why that refinement has given up on the idea of forces Einsteinians thinking of adding extra bit called dark energy whose effect is just that of an extra force So process is to just keep adding extra force, its still Newtonian physics in that context.
Anonymous

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 5:12 PM
 Flat arguments by anon: ___________________________________________________ >>>(ds)^2 = c^2 (dt)^2 - (dx)^2 - (dy)^2 - (dz)^2 is =0 for flat of special relativity ___________________________________________________ He looks more and more like an ignorant k12 troll.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 5:17 PM
 you are just idiot
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 5:20 PM
 Re: ON THE STRANGE MISCONCEPTIONS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY May 26 2012, 5:19 PM >>>The "canon ball theory of light" is an old theory that has been abandoned for very good reasons. still exists, by it is meant particle and by quantum mechanics we have wave-particle duality, you have very poor understanding of physics even for Einstein-zombie that thinks 1 =2
Anonymous

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 26 2012, 7:14 PM
 >>>>you are just idiot You said that when looking in the mirror
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 4:33 AM
 idiots like you never learn
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 8:33 AM
 general theory of relativity May 27 2012 at 8:31 AM anon general theory of relativity Albert Einstein's theory of gravity which describes gravitational forces in terms of the curvature of spacetime caused by the presence of mass. As the American physicist John Wheeler put it: "Space tells matter how to move; matter tells space how to curve." frohttp://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/G/genrel.html Wow gravitational force thats Newtonian physics. And Einstein's theory is going to treat that Newtonian concept as curvature of spacetime. Except our resident Einstein-zombie Mr. Anonymous says Einstein's theory does not treat Newtonian gravitational force as spacetime curvature. Well what do we expect from the land of Einsteinia with its doubletalk and insistence that 1=2. First they will say something sensible like 1=1 then follow that by something inane like insisting that leads to 1=2. Its beyond their comprehension to realise they don't know what they are talking about.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 8:40 AM
 >>>>Except our resident Einstein-zombie Mr. Anonymous says Einstein's theory does not treat Newtonian gravitational force as spacetime curvature. Well if you actually study relativity instead of quoting popular links that are written for dumbos like you...
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 8:47 AM
 relativity is for Einstein-zombies
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 8:48 AM
 the study of Einstein-zombies is a subject in itself
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 8:49 AM
 >>>>Wow gravitational force thats Newtonian physics. And Einstein's theory is going to treat that Newtonian concept as curvature of spacetime. to discuss general relativity read this http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1916_49_769-822.pdf if you don't understand this - then quoting popular links that are written for idiots who don't understand physics at all and don't have a personal opinion - is no option. If you understand physics you quote to original and scientific documents. if you don't understand physics you quote cartoons and popular links.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 8:52 AM
 >>>>relativity is for Einstein-zombies agreed - studying relativity requires skills - you don't have the skills to study relativity.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 9:23 AM
 the real anon replies - How silly you cite a German article. For the English-speaking it has been translated. >>>studying relativity requires skills - you don't have the skills to study relativity. Oh silly you, you demonstrate no skill what so ever other than believing whatever you like and ignoring evidence
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 9:40 AM
 anon: Oh silly you, you demonstrate no skill what so ever other than believing whatever you like and ignoring evidence anon: Pot calling the kettle black
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 9:42 AM
 anon Re: general theory of relativity May 27 2012, 9:41 AM to the real anon I agree with myself to the fake - get lost
Anonymous

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 9:45 AM
 every anon is fake. hiding behind a name like anon is fake.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 10:06 AM
 tell that to the Lone Ranger
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 10:06 AM
 anon Re: general theory of relativity May 27 2012, 9:41 AM to the real anon I agree with myself to the fake - get lost
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 11:36 AM
 >>>>to the real anon I agree with myself Agree required two or more persons. Only an idiot agrees with himself...
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 11:52 AM
 I disagree
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 11:52 AM
 anon Re: general theory of relativity May 27 2012, 9:41 AM to the real anon I agree with myself to the fake - get lost
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 12:02 PM
 >>>>to the real anon I agree with myself >>>>to the fake - get lost you seem to have an empty head - you can only repeat the same. Try to be more creative.
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 1:05 PM
 empty is you
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 1:05 PM
 Re: general theory of relativity May 27 2012, 11:50 AM anon Re: general theory of relativity May 27 2012, 9:41 AM to the real anon I agree with myself to the fake - get lost
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 2:51 PM
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 27 2012, 5:16 PM
 Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY May 27 2012, 1:05 PM Re: general theory of relativity May 27 2012, 11:50 AM anon Re: general theory of relativity May 27 2012, 9:41 AM to the real anon I agree with myself to the fake - get lost
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 28 2012, 10:30 AM
 >>>>We also have f'=c'/(lambda), so c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's special relativity. You miss a prime From http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf equation (2) f' = c / lambda' equation (3) f' = (c+v) / lambda Consequently lambda' = (1+v/c) lambda, NOT c' = c+v
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 28 2012, 12:36 PM
 equation (2) f' = c / lambda' equation (3) f' = (c+v) / lambda Consequently lambda' = (1+v/c) lambda, NOT c' = c+v but admittedly it depends upon how we manipulate the maths because we have f' = c / lambda' = (c+v) / lambda substitute lambda' = (1+v/c) lambda c(1+v/c) / lambda = (c+v) / lambda then equate to c' / lambda and we would then say c' = c+v so depends how want to look at it.
Anonymous

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 28 2012, 4:27 PM
 >>>>then equate to c' / lambda This is where you came up with - it cannot be found in the original link. If so please refer where
anon

# Re: THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

May 28 2012, 6:20 PM
 something that can easily be done with the maths bring in another variable
 Current Topic - THE SHORTEST REFUTATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Respond to this message