Validity of Einstein"s Theory, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news64168756.html

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

" Lately, though, general relativity has been looked at closely. Carroll says that while no evidence exists for the overthrow of the theory of general relativity, there are some points where general relativity may not apply. “General relativity is doing really well,” he explains to PhysOrg.com, “but there are two places where it might break down.” "

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. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
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 / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. "

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Rela...d_of_light.html
" Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. "

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
" Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "

Pentcho Valev

The light speed invariance follows from Maxwell's Aether Theory of Light directly and it can be derived from Maxwell's equations (Lorentz 1895). The constant speed of light serves just as an ad-hoc postulate in relativity theory, i.e. the assumption, which is accepted without proof.

It's evident, you don't believe both in Aether, both in relativity theory at the same time...

Pentcho Valev, a deranged person is in the habit of posting daily in order to demonstrate:

a. His hatered for Einstein
b. His envy
c. His ignorance of not only relativity in specific but of physics in general

Pure junk. On a daily basis.

The constancy of light remains in General Relativity. Light moves at the same speed but in slower time. That's all there is to that.

What happened to "[Admin: THIS IS A DEDICATED TOPIC FOR Pentcho Valev TO DISCUSS EINSTEIN THEORIES. OTHER NEW THREADS BY HIM WILL BE REMOVED AUTOMATICALLY]" from that thread in the Off-Topic forum??

No, No, No.

You misunderstand Pentcho Valev entirely if you leave out his anti-Second-Law-of-Thermodynamics stance.

I've been working on a grand-unified theory of Pentcho Valev and I wonder if the number "2" is his defining criteria for attacking a theory. Second Law, The two theories of Einstein, the two postulates of SR, the two postulates of GR, etc.

WILL EINSTEINIANS ABANDON THE FALSE SECOND POSTULATE?

The eternal trouble in Einstein's cult: The theory of relativity is an excellent money-spinner but one based on Einstein's false second postulate - the principle of constancy of the speed of light. So Einsteinians have never stopped trying to get rid of this postulate:

http://www.worldscibooks.com/physics/4114.html :"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://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 enévidence 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.”

The problem is that even the most convoluted attempt to build a relativity without Einstein's false second postulate unavoidably leads to reestablishing the old Newtonian-Galilean mechanics:

http://www.chapitre.com/CHAPITRE/fr/NEUF/p..._appel=CHAPITRE : Jean Eisenstaedt, "AVANT EINSTEIN: RELATIVITE, LUMIERE, GRAVITATION": À l'université, on ânonne sans trop comprendre : « la vitesse de la lumière est indépendante de celle de sa source ». Le principe de relativité jeté aux orties, l'éther entre en scène, un mot savant dont on n'a jamais vraiment su ce qu'il recouvre : un désastre !.... Newtoniens impénitents, ces « philosophes de la nature » ont tout simplement traité la lumière comme faite de vulgaires particules matérielles : des « corpuscules lumineux ». Mais ce sont gens sérieux et ils se sont basés sur leurs Classiques, Galilée, Newton et ses Principia où déjà l'on trouve des idées intéressantes. À la fin du XVIIIe siècle, au siècle des Lumières (si bien nommé en l'occurrence !), en Angleterre, en Écosse, en Prusse et même à Paris, une véritable balistique de la lumière sous-tend silencieusement la théorie de l'émission, avatar de la théorie corpusculaire de la lumière de Newton. Lus à la lumière ( !) des théories aujourd'hui acceptées, les résultats ne sont pas minces : toute une préhistoire émerge ainsi ! Une physique des rapports entre la lumière, la relativité, la gravitation... De très nombreux tests, expériences et effets aujourd'hui bien connus, peuvent s'y lire. Il s'agit de rien moins que d'une cinématique classique (galiléo-newtonienne) de la lumière, cohérente avec le principe de relativité et donc comparable par anticipation avec la cinématique einsteinienne. Il y manque bien sûr - et ce n'est pas rien ! - l'étrange loi de composition des vitesses (qui ne s'ajoutent plus si simplement) de Lorentz et l'interprétation plus tardive de Minkowski, qu'Einstein lui-même eut bien du mal à accepter...... Les « relativités » d'Einstein, cinématique einsteinienne et théorie de la gravitation, ont la triste réputation d'être difficiles... Ne remettent-elles pas en cause des notions familières ? Leur « refonte » est d'autant plus nécessaire."

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf : p. 35:"Relativity without c....it is easy to imagine a universe where the speed of light depends on the frame of reference. Light could behave like a baseball, for example. So let's drop the speed of light postulate and see what we can say about the coordinate transformations between frames, using only the relativity postulate." p.38:"There is 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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

INTELLIGENCE IN THE RELATIVITY CULT AND PHYSICS EDUCATION

Not very clever Einsteinians believe that the Michelson-Morley experiment CONFIRMED Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light and teach accordingly:

http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/ei...cial_relativity Paul A. Heckert: I am a university professor who has been teaching physics and astronomy for over 25 years. I have a Ph.D. in astrophysics and specialize in observational astronomy. My work has led to numerous published research articles in various astronomical journals: "Rather than trying to understand why the Michelson-Morley experiment didn't work, Einstein assumed that it did work and asked what the unexpected result was telling us about nature. Einstein took the result as his starting point. He made the basic assumption that the speed of light is a fundamental constant in the universe and that all observers in any reference frame that is not accelerating will measure the same value for the speed of light. His assumption that any observer moving at any constant velocity will measure the same value for the speed of light led to special relativity. Basically if the speed of light can't change for different observers moving at different speeds, some other things, such as length and time, must change. Einstein found a number of surprising consequences to this assumption."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Stephen Hawking: "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."

Clever Einsteinians know the Michelson-Morley experiment REFUTED Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light and teach accordingly:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00...3/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

For the last 100 years physicists have been constantly exposed to both teachings.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

WHEN EINSTEIN REALIZED HE WAS WRONG

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm "Einstein's Legacy -- Where are the "Einsteinians?", Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E = mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf "What Can We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light. Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD; indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a gravitational potential."

Note that the fact that THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD has made Lee Smolin conclude that SPECIAL, not general, relativity is wrong. That is what Einstein discovered in 1907 and what a small number of clever relativists have known since then. All other relativists have been hypnotized by Einstein's camouflage in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity".

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

mr.valev
the speed of light is constant if ray of light pass near of weak gravitational fields,as the of the earth.but at the pass near of strong gravitational fields
the light is encurved by the curvatures of time,and the rays of light follow
this encurving( that is the gravitational potential that becomes the speed of light
variable,there is GTR,and not STR.
is possible a STRONGEST GRAVITATIONAL FIELD THROW THE RAYS OF LIGHT
WITH VELOCIIES UPPER OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IN THE VACCUM?

some experiences describe that globally the lorentz transformation and cpt is non-conserved.then c would be variable in large spacetimes structures,correct?

This may soon be explained in sci.physics.relativity by a person that I call the Albert Einstein of our generation:

Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> Jeckyl wrote:
> > "John Kennaugh" <JKNG@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:tNpN5EKoygHGFweF@kennaugh2435hex.freeserve.co.uk...
> >> The second postulate
> >> mathematically says that the speed of light is constant c w.r.t the
> >> observer observing it. Light leaves the source at whatever speed w.r.t
> >> the source that it needs to be to fulfil that postulated requirement.
> >
> > No, it always moves at 'c' relative to the source.
>
> You're both wrong. In SR, light moves at c relative to EACH AND EVERY
> INERTIAL FRAME [#]. This need not apply to either "source" or
> "observer", but if either happens to be at rest in some inertial frame
> then it of course applies TO THAT INERTIAL FRAME.

Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation! Hawking has been dismissed because he does not know what the Michelson-Morley experiment has shown but you, you Roberts do know don't you:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...9465?scoring=d&

So very soon not Hawking but you, you Roberts will be the protagonist in scenarios like this one:

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/article...7&storyID=26568 "The students are attracted by the prospect of being in the same room with the Albert Einstein of our generation. They may not have an interest in physics, but they all want to witness this phenomenon."

Now Roberts there is something very simple you should add. If THAT INERTIAL FRAME is at a gravitational potential different from the gravitational potential of the light source, the speed of light measured by the observer in THAT INERTIAL FRAME is NOT c=299792km/s is it. Einstein has said so, other prominent relativists have said so and even you Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation, have hinted at this many times. So just say your final word Roberts.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Pentcho Valev claims to be some kind of crusader for scientific truth, yet sees no hypocrisy when it comes to misquoting people, misrepresenting links and saying flat out lies.

Infact, in this thread he readily admits to being a liar without shame, once confronted about his lies, then tells exactly the same lies immediately afterwards.

But since he now realises he can't very well admit to lying and then keep posting in the same thread, he moves onto the next thread, continuing his practice of lying, misquoting, fambricating stories and generally putting his ignorance on display. As some of these old threads he dredges up show, he's been doing it for many years now and hasn't learnt a thing.

No I just want Einstein's discoveries to be taught in the best way. Generally, relativists are excellent teachers:

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. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
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."

However, if teachers want their students to understand the real grandeur of Einstein's discoveries, they should set more problems. For instance: A light source on the surface of a huge celestial body, where the gravitational field is enormous, sends light towards a very distant INERTIAL observer (where the field is zero). What speed of light will the observer measure?

Students will learn that, according to Einstein, the speed of light for inertial observers is not only constant but also variable. So students will understand both the grandeur and the essence of Einstein's discoveries.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

The arriving light can be measured to have speed = c.

In accordance with Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) or in violation of Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)? Be careful: you are going to refute Divine Albert and your masters may not be very happy.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com