THE DEATH OF SCIENCE AND THE ROYAL SOCIETY

Twelve years ago (still just shocking the public and making money):

http://www.totse.com/en/technology/space_a...a/ftltravl.html : "ASTRONOMERS PREDICT FASTER THAN LIGHT SPACE TRAVEL. It is boldly going where no reputable scientific body has gone before. Contradicting Einstein, the normally conservative Royal Astronomical Society is about to publish a report predicting that mankind will be able to travel faster than the speed of light. The breakthrough means that Star Trek fantasies of interstellar civilisations and voyages powered by warp drive are now no longer the exclusive domain of science fiction writers...Crawford argues that modern physics may allow two possible ways around Einstein's theory....The theories will boost growing interest among scientists in the possibility of travelling faster than light. The IPS, whose members include several NASA engineers, starts its first conference shortly in Halifax, Nova Scotia."

Six years ago (concern is growing):

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts : "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now also thought to exist.....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.....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."

What is going on NOW? Why is the silence? Perhaps Rees, Hawking and others have realised that the death of science is irreversible anyway:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...#39;/article.do "SCIENCE AND MATH DEGREES IN IRREVERSIBLE DECLINE"

So one should just concentrate on his/her private happiness and forget about anything else.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Re: FTL paper in 1995

1) This is not news, this is from 1995
2) The paper is I.A. Crawford "Some Thoughts on the Implications of Faster-Than Interstellar Space Travel" Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society 36 3 (1995)
3) The paper is flawed by missing out on the quantum field theory no-go theorem for FTL communications. Most of the RAS has zero QFT experience -- so I cannot seriously hold this against them.
4) The focus of the paper is on the "What if ..." scenario. The first section is a "Will it ever be possible..." introduction, which other than the lack of QFT input seems reasonable.
5) How dare you presume to judge a paper by it's popular press coverage?
6) Ian Crawford shows every sign of being a practical futurist, and asking "What if ..." is well within his competence.

Re: Cosmology and the Anthropic principle, 2001
1) This is not a new issue
2) This is an issue at the boundary of physics and meta-physics, and the actual question is "Can physics address these questions?"
3) You must be insensible to communication if you think that these cosmologists remain silent on the subject

Re: University and College Union publication, 2007
1) Isn't this an advocacy group in the UK to spend more public monies on the universities?
2) Even if the study was unbiased, it's talking ONLY about the state of education in the UK, not the state of research or the state of education in even greater Europe.

Finally, Pentcho, you are demonstrated to be off-topic in a thread you created. Rather than finding support for Autodynamics, that laughable conceit, you fail to make even one point in your crusade against Einstein. Neither Ian Crawford nor Rees nor Hawking are saying Einstein was wrong in the domain of applicability of his theories.

Rppener,
You try to guard the relativity.
If it is shown to be dead in April, where will you hide?

1) Your post fails to distinguish between Special Relativity and General Relativity which have different realms of applicability
2) You are very unspecific on your April idea.
3) Relativity includes non-living matter so it's already "dead" -- I would be more interested in proof that it is wrong
4) What happens in April of any significance?
5) Relativity doesn't need me to guard it. All of experimental observation to date is consistent with it.
6) Why "hide"? Are you threatening me? That's a rather thuggish way to make a philosophical argument.
7) You are pretty arrogant to post using the handle "truth" -- it's so intrinsically deceptive that I will not bother to wager with you on the outcome of your April demonstration.

It is simply shown GR is wrong:
xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0512614

Jin He, who might have some basic training in photometrics, is of more use as meat than a physicist. But Jin He doesn't address Autodynamics at all. What Jin He mostly demonstrates is how to abuse arix.org -- the pre-print server. In Jin He's most recent paper he assumes someone has actually performed an experiment in reaction to his unpublished paper.

Jin He is completely mistaken that a vertical orientation of the Brillet-Hall experiment will test Local Lorentz Invarience.

C.M. Will's paper remains the gold-standard. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articl...06-3/fig_2.html



Has truth2k been kicked off the forum?

Dr. Ricardo Carezani, author of Autodynamics, embraces Relativity
In the flawed page Galilean Simplification, on the Autodynamics web site, you can clearly see the author embrace the principle of Galilean relativity. So let's create a test-theory of Galilean relativity and see what we learn.

Let's start with "All inertial frames are “equivalent”, which is where the “Relativity” in Special Relativity comes from. It makes no sense to say that something is moving; it only makes sense to say that one thing is moving with respect to another. Outside of geocentric theories, it is hard to imagine a “reasonable” universe where the relativity postulate does not hold. Galileo of course was not a geocentrist, and the aberration of starlight as show in the 1600's seemed to kill geocentricism.

Galileo says for co-moving frames, x = x' + v t' and t = t', which is pretty simple. Let's make a test theory of Galilean relativity and use experiment to test it.
Lets start with x = A(v) x' + b(v) t' AND t = c(v) t' + d(v) x'

Physically, these two frames must travel with respect to each other with speed v. And if S sees S' move at speed v, then S' should see S move at speed -v with every thing being the same up to a minus sign. Any time dilation should be symmetrical, because otherwise one of S or S' would be a preferred frame.

Since S sees S' move at speed v, then x'=0 must result in x/t = b(v)/c(v) = v, so b(v) = v c(v)
Since S' sees S move at speed -v, then x=0 implies x'/t' = - v c(v)/A(v), therefore A(v) = c(v)

Right now, we have
x = A(v) x' + v A(v) t' AND t = A(v) t' + d(v) x'

If there is a time dilation effect, it needs to be symmetric. For x' = 0, t = A(v) t', but for x = 0, we have
x' = - v t' which means t = A(v) t' -v d(v) t' or t' = t / (A(v) - v d(v) )
Setting these two time-dilations as equal to each other, we have
A(v) = 1 / (A(v) - v d(v)) or d(v) = (1/v) (A(v) - 1/A(v))

Therefore our test theory of Galilean relativity is

x = A(v)(x' + v t') AND t = A(v)(t' + (1/v) (1 - A(v)^-2) x')

which starts with the most basic generalization of Galilean relativity with just internal consistency.

Now, A(v) is some number, but it's a little inconvenient for our purposes, so let's define B(v)^2 = v^2/(1 - A(v)^-2)
In which case A(v) = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/B(v)^2)

And our relations are
x = (1/sqrt(1 - v^2/B(v)^2))(x' + v t') AND t = (1/sqrt(1 - v^2/B(v)^2))(t' + (v/B(v)^2) x')
or
x = A(v)(x' + v t') AND t = A(v)(t' + (v/B(v)^2) x')


But since "All inertial frames are “equivalent”, we can compare our results at two different values of v, v1 and v2.
That leads to two different values of B1 = B(v1) and B2 = B(v2) and A1 = 1/sqrt(1 - v1^2/B1^2) and A2 = 1/sqrt(1 - v2^2/B2^2)
The result must be in the same form as our relativity transformation.

Applying our relations two times, first for v1 and then for v2, we have

x' = A1(x'' + v1 t'') AND t' = A1(t'' + (v1/B1^2) x'')

x = A2(x' + v2 t') = A1A2(x'' + v1 t'' + v2 t'' + v2 (v1/B1^2) x'') = A1A2((1 + v1v2/B1^2)x'' + (v1+v2) t'' )
t = A2 (t' + (v2/B2^2) x') = A1A2 (t'' + (v1/B1^2) x'' + (v2/B2^2) x'' + (v2/B2^2) v1 t'') = A1A2 ((1 + v1v2/B2^2)t'' + ((v1/B1^2) + (v2/B2^2)) x'' )

But since the coefficients of x'' and t'' will be different unless B1^2 = B2^2, then B(v)^2 must be a constant, independent of v. Let's write B(v)^2 = C^2.

So what is the value of C^2 ?

If C^2 is infinite, then A(v) = 1 and the equations of Galilean Relativity result.
If C^2 is finite and positive, then we have Lorentz transformations where sqrt(C^2) is the limiting speed of objects.
If C^2 is zero, then any non-zero v makes A(v) imaginary and infinite. Nothing could ever move.
If C^2 is negative, then we get a weird result where the possibility of going backwards in time results. This is apparently not physical.

So is C^2 finite or infinite?
sqrt(C^2) >= c because we have measured things moving at c. Indeed, every experiment is consistent with sqrt(C^2) = c, the speed of light.

Therefore, if Carezani embraces experiment and logic, then Carezani embraces Relativity.

Thanks to Pentcho Valev for raising this question and thanks to David Morin for answering it.

David Morin. THERE ONCE WAS A CLASSICAL THEORY…: Introductory Classical Mechanics, with Problems and Solutions, 2004
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf
http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16..._appendices.pdf

Everyone knows Rppener and AlphaNumeric write dishonest stuff. No one considers they are sound sense.
However, there are more big liers:

1). C.M.Will:
C.M.Will claims all directions. Big lier!
Everyone can check Brillet-Hall experiment paper.
The cavity like a table parallel to earth surface is rotated constantly. Not vertical at all! You are big lier, C.M.Will! You wrote such dishonest `fact` to earn tax money!

2) I. I. Shapiro: Radar Echo Delay. Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 1594 (1972): Shapiro et al. You are another big lier, Shapiro. You claim that radar echo data meet GR with error less than 1%. You cheat tax!!
What is radar echo? Simple: radar signal is fireed from earth to another planet when the planet is at the other side of sun. Generally the returned signal takes many minutes when spacetime is flat, for example 16 minutes = 960 seconds. If spacetime is curved, there is excess time delay which is 0.00024 second according to Shapiro. This means radar can measure distance in the accuracy of kilometer (radar is light wave at speed 300000 kilometer/second). You can measure the distance between earth and the other planet with 1 kolometer accuracy?

How to devise a value t so that t minus 960 second equals to 0.00024 second?
Shapiro wanted to earn tax money. Because GR formulas contain sun mass M, earth-sun distance A, and other parameters. Therefore, he assumed that M, A, ... are arbitrary parameters and chosed their optimized values so that GR formulas give the required t and t minus 960 second approaches to 0.00024 second within the error of 1% Big lier!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

3) Even the GR formulas are big liers. Relativists consider the coordinates to have direct meaning of distance, angle, time. However, Rieman proved: if and only if space is flat will one coordinate system exist which has direct meaning of distance, angle, time.

4) Rpenner ans AlphaNumeric are very very small liers.

THE EQUATION EINSTEINIANS HATE DEEPLY

That is the textbook equation

FREQUENCY = (SPEED OF LIGHT)/(WAVELENGTH)

Since the frequency often shifts (confirmed experimentally) the equation tells you that either the speed of light or the wavelength shifts as well and Einsteinians would (and sometimes try to) wholeheartedly explain why it is the wavelength that shifts if it were not almost obvious that the frequency shift is due to VARIABILITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT. In moments of mental aberration Einsteinians explicitly admit this:

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]….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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Equivalently, gravity slows time down.

Again, Pentcho Valev, this is not news. Furthermore, you add no content.