Pentcho Valev about Einstein, merge of all Pentcho's threads

[Admin: THIS IS A DEDICATED TOPIC FOR Pentcho Valev TO DISCUSS EINSTEIN THEORIES. OTHER NEW THREADS BY HIM WILL BE REMOVED AUTOMATICALLY]

All his previous topics will be attached to this thread.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In 1919 Karl Popper found it suitable to start worshipping at the portrait of Albert Einstein because, unlike Marxism and psychoanalysis, the theory of relativity produced unambiguous results that could be tested experimentally. I suspect Popper was particularly impressed by Chapter 23 in Einstein's "Relativity" where Einstein offers a few confusions to the reader but the final result is unambiguous indeed: the observer at rest measures the periphery of the rotating disc to be LONGER than the periphery of a non-rotating disc. This result contradicts the unambiguous concept of length contraction according to which the observer at rest should measure the moving length to be SHORTER than the length at rest. In other words, both discoveries of Einstein - that the moving length is longer (LENGTH DILATION) and that the moving length is shorter (LENGTH CONTRACTION) - are unambiguous and can be tested experimentally. Popper went into convulsions any time he remembered this particular unambiguity of Einstein's theory.

Other relativists have considerably contributed to the unambiguity. So Ehrenfest discovered that the rotating periphery is SHORTER, in accordance with the unambiguous concept of length contraction. That is, Ehrenfest rejected the unambiguous concept of length dilation introduced by Einstein. A third group of relativists unambiguously say that the length of the rotating periphery is EQUAL to the length of the non-rotating periphery and so reject the unambiguous concepts of Einstein and Ehrenfest. Clearly, Popper's conclusion that relativity is science and Marxism and psychoanalysis are pseudo-sciences is justified.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Chapter 3:

Albert Einstein: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Yes, Albert the Juggler knew what he had done. Einstein's hypnotists also know the sad truth but have not found an alternative source of money yet. Einstein's zombies know nothing but have become less aggressive lately, just in case.

Pentcho Valev

At least the old fellow had the class and compassion to tell the truth and allow more questioning into his so called facts. He merely did what he could with the mind that he had then gracefully said go forth and explore a new world.

They are going to jump on the next band-wagon as soon as it seems plausible, the money grubbers.

Thanks for the wonderful link.

After 100 years of fierce worshipping the journal Nature changed its attitude:

http://definefuture.buildtolearn.net/indet...p?type=a&id=225

However the tests offered by Einstein's hypnotists create the impression that only small details could be wrong whereas Einstein's theory as a whole is correct. This cannot be true: Einstein's theory is based on the false postulate of constancy of the speed of light and, since the theory is DEDUCTIVE, it is ENTIRELY false. Einstein was quite clear about that - see Chapter 4 in Bryan Wallace's "The Farce of Physics":

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :

Albert Einstein :

"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

Here is perhaps the easiest test that disproves relativity. When the top of the tower emits light, the receiver on the ground receives this light with a frequency

(1+phi/c^2)Fo = (c+v)/KLo

where Fo and Lo are the initial frequency and wavelength respectively and c+v is the speed of the light as measured by the receiver (c=300000km/s). The couple

(1) v > 0 ; K = 1

acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon: on seeing it Einsteinians get petrified and remain so until the danger is over. The couple

(2) v = 0 ; K = 1/(1+phi/c^2)

also acts like the face of Medusa the Gorgon: even Einstein's zombies feel that this value of K is too idiotic.

Clearly (1) is the correct answer: it disproves relativity.

Pentcho Valev

1. Nature has a web site. You could link to it. I did.
2. You have previous posted on both these subjects. When you start a new topic, does that mean you have no interest in a conversation?
3. Do you have a personal grudge against Einstein? You use a lot of hyperbole, but I would prefer an experimental demonstration of v+c.

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=78655

http://www.nature.com/news/archive/060220.html

The Feb 21 news item from the website of Nature is a report of a recent surge of very sensitive experiments to test parts of Einstein's theories. (It's not clear, but I think GR might be more closely examined than SR.) Indeed, the LIGO and other GW detectors have not yet been polished to their final sensitivities, so some predictions of Einstein's theory have not been directly tested to the limit of clever person's imagination.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Gene..._questions.html

Of course, many clever people HAVE tested Einstein's theories in the laboratory, in space, and via astronomical observation.

For SR I would point you to Y.Z.Zhang, Special Relativity and its Experimental Foundations, World Scientific (1997). or if you need web resources http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...xperiments.html
For GR I would point you to http://pdg.lbl.gov/2005/reviews/gravrpp.pdf "Experimental tests of gravitational theory (Review article)"
...
Paraphrasing Warren Siegel, in some fields every experiment is a test of SR.
...

http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...indpost&p=82048

Special Relativity: A Centenary Perspective, 2006, Birkhauser, Basel, pp. 33-58
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0504085

"Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?" K Brecher, October 24 1977. Physical Review Letters 39, 17 pp. 1051–1054
http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v39/i17/p1051_1

"Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region", T Alvaeger, FJM Farley, J Kjellman and I Wallin October 1, 1964, Physics Letters 12 3 pp. 260-262
(I can't put the umlaut on the a on Alvaeger's name, so I wrote it as ae)
http://www.physics.utoronto.ca/~phy140/spr...s/piondecay.pdf

Edit:
If you are supporting Emitter theory where v_light = v_0 + c, then you should be much clearer on how your theory differs from failed models of emitter theory.

http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/dept/einstein/reid.html#table4

The frequency shift factor 1+phi/c^2 is obtained EXPERIMENTALLY. (1) and (2) are the only possible explanations. Which one do you choose:

(1): Yes? No?

(2): Yes? No?

Pentcho Valev

The frequency shift factor 1+phi/c^2 is obtained EXPERIMENTALLY. (1) and (2) are the only possible explanations. Which one do you choose:

(1): Yes? No?

(2): Yes? No?

Pentcho Valev

Those who wish to think more on the problem: Consider the scenario discussed on pp. 3-4 in

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf

Since "we can always pick a new instantaneous rest frame of the rocket", let us pick one different from S, the inertial frame S'. In S' the receiver, which/who has just received the pulse and has a speed v relative to S, is momentarily at rest.

Relative to S', both S and the light source at the moment of emitting the pulse (only one pulse is emitted) have a speed v. In other words, a light source with speed v (relative to S') emits a single flash of light towards the receiver which is momentarily at rest in S' at the moment of receiving the light.

What is the relative speed of the pulse, one one hand, and S' and the accelerated receiver (observer), on the other, at the moment of receiving the light? Does this relative speed depend on the speed v of the light source? The following answer by a relativity activist essentially resolves the problem:

Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?
> Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can
> also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the
> standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated
> observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in
> Minkowski spacetime).
> Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

Pentcho Valev

Ah, that's where you want to cite the experiment. "phi" has no intrinsic meaning. The dimensional units of phi don't cancel those of c^2, so the addition of the dimensionaless constant 1 makes the factor ambiguous.

The experiment most commonly cited for an early test of GR and gamma rays found a different factor of ( 1 + 2 g h / c ^ 2 ), which is dimensionally consistant unlike your formula.

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v140/i3B/pB788_1

"Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation" RV Pound and JL Snider, November 8 1965, Phys. Rev. 140, pp B788–B803

A large part of Wallace's beef is that Shapiro created a never before seen test of GR and had to wait for the technology to measure a radar beam pulsed off Venus to be developed. The MIT Haystack was the first tool to do this. A somewhat garbled press release here: http://www.physorg.com/news5199.html
It is unclear what expertise Wallace has but it is hard to follow his own communications, as he compares 3ms with 10ms and concludes one number is bigger than the other by 30000%. Also, timing a reflection off Venus for the very first time, you have errors slipping in from the accuracy of your timing source, limits to Man's knowledge about the exact path of Venus, and the fact that Venus isn't a point-like object, but has radius of 6x10^6 m or 20 ms times c, causing a widening of the expected return pulse. As the GR-expected effect is on the order of 200ms, this is a good test of GR, and gets better as Shapiro's team improves their experimental methods. Wallace demonstrates no understanding of these experimental methods in his own communications.

http://www.astrocentral.co.uk/venuspage.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shapiro_delay
(Sadly, much of the journal articles from this long ago are not on the web, including many of Wallace's original letters.

You can read about the experimentalist side of this from Shapiro himself:
http://www.hep.yorku.ca/menary/courses/phy.../relativity.pdf
"A century of relativity" II Shapiro, March 1999, Rev. Mod. Phys., 71, 2, pp S41–S53

Edit:
According to http://www.mrelativity.net/Papers/29/GTR_T...Pound_Rebka.pdf the 2 comes from the experimental setup and as such doubles the GR effect. Whether it is gh/c^2 or 2gh/c^2, I don't know how phi = g * h

Stop telling God what a mental case you are!

Such citation can just serve as the proof, Prof. Einstein was pluralistic, far-seeing and wise personality, free of ultimate thinking & statements with compare some later naive proponents/opponents of his theory. For example, Prof. Einstein never refuted the Aether theory definitely:

"...More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether. We may assume the existence of an ether... According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only wouldn't be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense..."

Such statement can be easily interpreted by the following way:

The space-time is generated by the inertial waves of inhomogeneous massive environment, i.e. the Aether

Unfortunately & surprisingly enough, the Einstein's moral and scientific authority was totally ignored at this point - but is it a Einstein's mistake, really? As you probably know a quite well, people tend to simple, schematic stances.

On the other hand, when the future would show, the space/time isn't fully homogeneous, nothing would change on the mathematic formalization of Einstein theory, which will remain useful approximation of reality, well confirmed experimentally with high precision. Don't forget, all the main postulates of relativity theory comes from the results of Maxwell & Lorentz aetherist, in fact. The scheme bellow illustrates the amazing precision of validation of the general relativity postulates.



By the same way, we aren't required to reformulate the results of Newton theory just because it seems, they're valid just only at some dimension/energy density level/range. It will serve for most of practical examples as well, as before. Most of current theories are just a calibration theories - it means, they just making some correction, not the redefinition of our understanding of reality. From this point of view the general relativity is just a calibration theory of Newton theory, the fudamental reformulation of it would require the reconsideration of the Newton theory, too.

Furthermore, it can be even possible, the duality character of Universe can be extended into system of physical theories by such way, the reality cannot be never described just by the single theory. It means, whenever we found some unification theory, we should always suppose, it's just a part of some broader concept.

So I'd recommend to be more pluralistic and more opened in your opinions - at least by the same way, as the "Albert the Juggler", whose you're quoting all the time.

http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html

"Carroll says that origin of the theory of general relativity dates to 1905, when scientists, notably including Albert Einstein, realized that space and time are related characteristics of a four-dimensional existence."

The four-dimensionality suggested in 1905 is a corollary of the false second postulate of Einstein: the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source or observer. In fact, the speed of light does depend on the speed of the source or observer: light has a speed c=300000km/s with respect to the light source but then the observer measures its speed to be c+v, where v is the relative speed of the source and the observer. This seems to be a controversial topic but from a purely scientific point of view it is not - clever relativists have known that the speed of light is variable for a very long time. The reason why Einstein"s relativity is still alive has nothing to do with pure science - see

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm

Pentcho Valev

The speed of light IS independent of the speed of the observer - but so is the speed of sound. So einstein did nothing special.

The prblme with the general theory of relativity is that it does not explain anything. It gives a perfect mathematical model (geodesics) to work with gravity, but nothing in nature indicates that 'reality' (whatever that is ) follows geodesics.

I don't know where you guys are getting your data from. Experiment has shown that the speed of light is constant, regardless of your reference frame. From Einstein's second postulate comes all sorts of experimentally confirmed weirdness, including time dilation and the redshift of galaxies.

General relativity also has supporting evidence. It accurately predicted the previously unexplainable precession of Mercury's orbit, and during the May 29th, 1919 solar eclipse perfectly predicted the bending of light from stars behind the sun. The path of light could not bend at all classically (Newtonian Physics), since light is a massless particle and the (classical) force of gravity requires two objects to have mass in order to attract each other. But nonetheless, we see light bending around massive objects. This is perfectly explained by general relativity, in that light would still bend if space were curved.

I read your link, it is nonsense written by someone who obviously doesn't understand physics.

Take a relativity course or study a technical relativity book, and Pentcho Valev's argument will look absolutely dumb.

The WAVELENGTH of the observed light can (and does) change from observer to observer, but the speed © never does.