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
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Jun 25 2006, 03:38 PM)
..Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!..
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...
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.
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??
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 26 2006, 01:01 AM)
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
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.
a. His hatered for Einstein
b. His envy
c. His ignorance of not only relativity in specific but of physics in general
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
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
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
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?
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?
QUOTE (mott.carl+Apr 7 2007, 01:35 PM)
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
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.
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.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Apr 13 2007, 10:23 PM)
Pentcho Valev claims to be some kind of crusader for scientific truth....
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
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
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Apr 17 2007, 08:52 AM)
What speed of light will the observer measure?
The arriving light can be measured to have speed = c.
The arriving light can be measured to have speed = c.
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 17 2007, 08:18 PM)
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
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
Not at all.
At every point on the path light travels from a distant star to my eye, a local apparatus will measure the speed of that light to be exactly c.
Einstein's equation applies to a non-local measurement of c, taking into account the global effect of space-time curvature on the measurements in a non-local frame. Since speed is a ratio which connects space and time, Einstein's equation is perfectly valid, but there is a freedom in the relationship, so it's equivalent to lump all the GR goodness into the time dilation term.
v = d/t
delta-v = f(delta-d,delta-t)
In GR, there is a lot of mathematics precisely because even though two distant observers will think each others clocks are screwy, every local test A makes will agree with the laws of physics agreed to by B.
At every point on the path light travels from a distant star to my eye, a local apparatus will measure the speed of that light to be exactly c.
Einstein's equation applies to a non-local measurement of c, taking into account the global effect of space-time curvature on the measurements in a non-local frame. Since speed is a ratio which connects space and time, Einstein's equation is perfectly valid, but there is a freedom in the relationship, so it's equivalent to lump all the GR goodness into the time dilation term.
v = d/t
delta-v = f(delta-d,delta-t)
In GR, there is a lot of mathematics precisely because even though two distant observers will think each others clocks are screwy, every local test A makes will agree with the laws of physics agreed to by B.
QUOTE (rpenner+Apr 18 2007, 06:16 AM)
Not at all.
At every point on the path light travels from a distant star to my eye, a local apparatus will measure the speed of that light to be exactly c.
Einstein's equation applies to a non-local measurement of c, taking into account the global effect of space-time curvature on the measurements in a non-local frame. Since speed is a ratio which connects space and time, Einstein's equation is perfectly valid....
Since it is perfectly valid, your previous solution to the problem:
"The arriving light can be measured to have speed = c."
is wrong. Just apply the perfectly valid Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and note that the light source and the receiver (observer) are at DIFFERENT GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIALS.
By the way, I agree that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is perfectly valid.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
At every point on the path light travels from a distant star to my eye, a local apparatus will measure the speed of that light to be exactly c.
Einstein's equation applies to a non-local measurement of c, taking into account the global effect of space-time curvature on the measurements in a non-local frame. Since speed is a ratio which connects space and time, Einstein's equation is perfectly valid....
Since it is perfectly valid, your previous solution to the problem:
"The arriving light can be measured to have speed = c."
is wrong. Just apply the perfectly valid Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and note that the light source and the receiver (observer) are at DIFFERENT GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIALS.
By the way, I agree that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is perfectly valid.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
i think that the connction metric used by einstein to the explain the curvatures of spacetime,and with this explain the alterations of the clocks,in conformity with
variable gravitational potential, with the disticts spacetime curvatures,that modify
the spacetime,with this d and t are variables,and c might remain constant,in intervals of spacetime with curvatures almost flat( minkowskian hyperbolic rotation
groups),with differential nearest of zero,with v radial approaching of the infinite.then the strongest spacetime curvatures deform the the clocks and rods,
becoming c variable,but this c' is always minor than c( in the vaccum),with the
LT being violated,but CPT is conserved.in the case,where occur the connection metric fail,then both local LT and CPT are violated and c'',must have speed greater than c( in the vaccum); then could to talk on the superluminal speeds
without violate causality.
variable gravitational potential, with the disticts spacetime curvatures,that modify
the spacetime,with this d and t are variables,and c might remain constant,in intervals of spacetime with curvatures almost flat( minkowskian hyperbolic rotation
groups),with differential nearest of zero,with v radial approaching of the infinite.then the strongest spacetime curvatures deform the the clocks and rods,
becoming c variable,but this c' is always minor than c( in the vaccum),with the
LT being violated,but CPT is conserved.in the case,where occur the connection metric fail,then both local LT and CPT are violated and c'',must have speed greater than c( in the vaccum); then could to talk on the superluminal speeds
without violate causality.
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Apr 18 2007, 06:51 AM)
Since it is perfectly valid, your previous solution to the problem:
"The arriving light can be measured to have speed = c."
is wrong. Just apply the perfectly valid Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and note that the light source and the receiver (observer) are at DIFFERENT GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIALS.
By the way, I agree that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is perfectly valid.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
By selectively quoting part of my careful answer you have shown yourself to be a person who does not hold truth in high regard.
"The arriving light can be measured to have speed = c."
is wrong. Just apply the perfectly valid Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and note that the light source and the receiver (observer) are at DIFFERENT GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIALS.
By the way, I agree that Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is perfectly valid.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
By selectively quoting part of my careful answer you have shown yourself to be a person who does not hold truth in high regard.
rpenner
i believe that the STR and GTR are fantastic theories,but always permit reflection not to vality or tosay that is wrong.the science is beyond any ideologies.
time dilatation always will go produce contraversies.
so as the speed of light is constant and because is isotropic.is due the nature of the
universe,or due others physical laws.
many experiments( as the of MM favoured the creation of the RT),place in checks
some basis that aid to form the relativity.as LT violations. cpt fail,and others conceits more abstracts.
to remain in 100 years as a theory low contested,it must have a solid base.
i believe that the STR and GTR are fantastic theories,but always permit reflection not to vality or tosay that is wrong.the science is beyond any ideologies.
time dilatation always will go produce contraversies.
so as the speed of light is constant and because is isotropic.is due the nature of the
universe,or due others physical laws.
many experiments( as the of MM favoured the creation of the RT),place in checks
some basis that aid to form the relativity.as LT violations. cpt fail,and others conceits more abstracts.
to remain in 100 years as a theory low contested,it must have a solid base.
TWO MYTHS ABOUT THE FALSE SECOND POSTULATE OF EINSTEIN
In his 1905 paper Einstein clearly showed that both Faraday's induction law and "the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium" lead to the principle of relativity (the first postulate) whereas the second postulate which is "apparently irreconcilable with the former" is introduced SEPARATELY:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case. Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium", suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, 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."
Then the minds of relativists were reprogrammed and now they believe that Einstein's arguments led to the second postulate, Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light. Yet a clever relativist dispersed the myth about "the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium":
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."
Of course, in the world of Einstein nobody cares about dispersal of myths. Some day another clever relativist will disperse, in the same way, the myth about Faraday's induction law. Nobody will care again.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
In his 1905 paper Einstein clearly showed that both Faraday's induction law and "the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium" lead to the principle of relativity (the first postulate) whereas the second postulate which is "apparently irreconcilable with the former" is introduced SEPARATELY:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case. Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the "light medium", suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good.1 We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, 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."
Then the minds of relativists were reprogrammed and now they believe that Einstein's arguments led to the second postulate, Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light. Yet a clever relativist dispersed the myth about "the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the light medium":
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."
Of course, in the world of Einstein nobody cares about dispersal of myths. Some day another clever relativist will disperse, in the same way, the myth about Faraday's induction law. Nobody will care again.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
the emission and absorption of the light would ge in different times,doing with that
speed of light variable appear as constant in the transformation of the time-vector
forward in time( retarded potential)and backwardin time(advanced potential).in that differences of time,the speed of light appear to be constant to inertial systems.then the lorentz transformations does the decompositions in the space and time,the curve spacetime(hyperbolic manifolds) and flat spacetime(pseudo-euclidean manifolds). the electromagnetic and the displacement(generated by indution,or induced metric,produced by the charged and spacetime topologic) are
asymmetric.the asymmetry is derived of the spacetime be curve;it is non-linear
space.
speed of light variable appear as constant in the transformation of the time-vector
forward in time( retarded potential)and backwardin time(advanced potential).in that differences of time,the speed of light appear to be constant to inertial systems.then the lorentz transformations does the decompositions in the space and time,the curve spacetime(hyperbolic manifolds) and flat spacetime(pseudo-euclidean manifolds). the electromagnetic and the displacement(generated by indution,or induced metric,produced by the charged and spacetime topologic) are
asymmetric.the asymmetry is derived of the spacetime be curve;it is non-linear
space.
mr.VALEX
what you think to respect for the existence of undistorted progresive waves of arbitrary speeds 0, <or equal v < infinite in nature?
what you think to respect for the existence of undistorted progresive waves of arbitrary speeds 0, <or equal v < infinite in nature?
ZILLIONS OF OBSERVATIONS OF WAVELENGTH IN EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> harry wrote:
> > On May 4, 8:12 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> That would be true if wavelength were an intrinsic property of the light
> >> wave, but it isn't. <shrug>
> >> Wavelength is a _relationship_ between a given light wave and a specific
> >> inertial frame in which the distance between wave crests is measured. it
> >> cannot possibly be intrinsic to the wave.
> >
> > Obviously the word "intrinsic" is ambiguous in this context;
>
> No, it isn't. Intrinsic properties of an object are those properties
> that are inherent in the object, unrelated to anything else. In modern
> physics, intrinsic properties are invariant.
>
>
> > Apparently you use "intrinsic" as a synonym for "invariant",
>
> No. But they are related.
>
>
> > Indeed, it is *by definition* impossible to physically
> > change the length of a wave by changing the speed of observation.
>
> There is no such thing as "length of a wave". THAT'S THE POINT. There is
> only "wavelength as measured in this frame". Any model in which
> wavelength is a property of the wave alone is refuted by zillions of
> observations. <shrug>
>
>
> Tom Roberts
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.)! Your student Harry does not seem to understand your wisdom and I think you should kick him out of Einstein cult. Anyway, you say "zillions" but I know you mean Pound and Rebka 1960 experiment that proved that the frequency varies in accordance with
f' = f(1 + V/c^2) /1/
where V is the gravitational potential. Bad people hostile to Einstein criminal cult remembered Einstein's 1911 equation
c' = c(1 + V/c^2) /2/
and said that /1/ and /2/ are consistent, in accordance with the formula
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength) /3/
However Big Brother sees all and bad intentions were quickly noticed and counteracted. You Roberts Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.), you declared Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) WRONG (you did not say it should be replaced with the correct equation c'=c but what else could /2/ be replaced with Roberts Roberts?) and started worshipping, apart from Divine Albert, THE WAVELENGTH: if something varies in accordance with the varying frequency /1/, this something could only be the wavelength and by no means the speed of light as predicted by Einstein. Now Roberts Roberts your work should be completed:
Einstein's 1911 wrong equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is replaced with the correct equation
c' = c /4/
In accordance with /1/, /3/ and /4/, the wavelength varies in the following way:
L' = L/(1 + V/c^2) /5/
Do you agree Roberts Roberts? Or perhaps Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is not so wrong after all?
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> harry wrote:
> > On May 4, 8:12 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> That would be true if wavelength were an intrinsic property of the light
> >> wave, but it isn't. <shrug>
> >> Wavelength is a _relationship_ between a given light wave and a specific
> >> inertial frame in which the distance between wave crests is measured. it
> >> cannot possibly be intrinsic to the wave.
> >
> > Obviously the word "intrinsic" is ambiguous in this context;
>
> No, it isn't. Intrinsic properties of an object are those properties
> that are inherent in the object, unrelated to anything else. In modern
> physics, intrinsic properties are invariant.
>
>
> > Apparently you use "intrinsic" as a synonym for "invariant",
>
> No. But they are related.
>
>
> > Indeed, it is *by definition* impossible to physically
> > change the length of a wave by changing the speed of observation.
>
> There is no such thing as "length of a wave". THAT'S THE POINT. There is
> only "wavelength as measured in this frame". Any model in which
> wavelength is a property of the wave alone is refuted by zillions of
> observations. <shrug>
>
>
> Tom Roberts
Bravo Roberts bravo Tom bravo Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.)! Your student Harry does not seem to understand your wisdom and I think you should kick him out of Einstein cult. Anyway, you say "zillions" but I know you mean Pound and Rebka 1960 experiment that proved that the frequency varies in accordance with
f' = f(1 + V/c^2) /1/
where V is the gravitational potential. Bad people hostile to Einstein criminal cult remembered Einstein's 1911 equation
c' = c(1 + V/c^2) /2/
and said that /1/ and /2/ are consistent, in accordance with the formula
frequency = (speed of light)/(wavelength) /3/
However Big Brother sees all and bad intentions were quickly noticed and counteracted. You Roberts Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer etc.), you declared Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) WRONG (you did not say it should be replaced with the correct equation c'=c but what else could /2/ be replaced with Roberts Roberts?) and started worshipping, apart from Divine Albert, THE WAVELENGTH: if something varies in accordance with the varying frequency /1/, this something could only be the wavelength and by no means the speed of light as predicted by Einstein. Now Roberts Roberts your work should be completed:
Einstein's 1911 wrong equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is replaced with the correct equation
c' = c /4/
In accordance with /1/, /3/ and /4/, the wavelength varies in the following way:
L' = L/(1 + V/c^2) /5/
Do you agree Roberts Roberts? Or perhaps Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is not so wrong after all?
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
HOW ACCURATE IS OUR MEASUREMENT OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT? AND PLEASE DON'T TELL ME IT IS ALREADY EXACT BECAUSE WE DEFINE A METER BY IT. IT CAN ONLY BE MEASURED ACCURATELY NOT DEFINED INTO ACCURACY.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
The accuracy is at or above the 0.1 meter/second level. This is above the accuracy of the pre-1983 international standard for the meter.
Pentcho Valev's nitpicking with different viewpoints within the GR theory, have nothing to do with his contention that the speed of light emitted from an object = v + c.
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desit-2e.htm
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desit-2e.htm
QUOTE (rpenner+May 7 2007, 06:32 PM)
Pentcho Valev's nitpicking with different viewpoints within the GR theory, have nothing to do with his contention that the speed of light emitted from an object = v + c.
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desit-2e.htm
Haven't you noticed that your masters (relativity hypnotists) only reluctantly refer to de Sitter binary stars experiment? Apart from learning by rote what your masters say, you should be able to guess what your masters' silence could mean.
Another example: You may notice that, for some time, your masters have stopped referring to the muon lifetime experiment which allegedly confirms special relativity. What could that mean?
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/desit-2e.htm
Haven't you noticed that your masters (relativity hypnotists) only reluctantly refer to de Sitter binary stars experiment? Apart from learning by rote what your masters say, you should be able to guess what your masters' silence could mean.
Another example: You may notice that, for some time, your masters have stopped referring to the muon lifetime experiment which allegedly confirms special relativity. What could that mean?
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+May 8 2007, 05:42 AM)
Haven't you noticed that your masters (relativity hypnotists) only reluctantly refer to de Sitter binary stars experiment? Apart from learning by rote what your masters say, you should be able to guess what your masters' silence could mean.
Another example: You may notice that, for some time, your masters have stopped referring to the muon lifetime experiment which allegedly confirms special relativity. What could that mean?
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
The Muon lifetime can be used to demonstrate the slowing of time.
People say that time doesn't exist then how is it going to slowdown?
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
Another example: You may notice that, for some time, your masters have stopped referring to the muon lifetime experiment which allegedly confirms special relativity. What could that mean?
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
The Muon lifetime can be used to demonstrate the slowing of time.
People say that time doesn't exist then how is it going to slowdown?
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --
QUOTE (Nick+May 8 2007, 07:21 AM)
The Muon lifetime can be used to demonstrate the slowing of time.
Blunder and meaningless, call it "relativistic" or not. Muon, if not only a concept/model of reality itself, is kind of system with its own inner dynamics under real outer circumstances. That dynamics is its time. So there is no any such a "slowing".
Time IS dynamcs of a real systems and only in that sense it always "exists".
Regards
Blunder and meaningless, call it "relativistic" or not. Muon, if not only a concept/model of reality itself, is kind of system with its own inner dynamics under real outer circumstances. That dynamics is its time. So there is no any such a "slowing".
QUOTE
People say that time doesn't exist then how is it going to slowdown?
Time IS dynamcs of a real systems and only in that sense it always "exists".
Regards
QUOTE (Turya+May 8 2007, 07:50 AM)
Blunder and meaningless, call it "relativistic" or not. Muon, if not only a concept/model of reality itself, is kind of system with its own inner dynamics under real outer circumstances. That dynamics is its time. So there is no any such a "slowing".
In the muon lifetime experiment the fraud is in measuring the lifetime of muons "at rest":
http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf "In this experiment, we measure two of the basic properties of the muon, namely, its mean lifetime and mass in its rest frame. We measure the decay curve of cosmic-ray muons that have come to rest in a plastic scintillator by looking for electrons produced in their decay."
That is, according to relativists, as muons undergo a terrible crash during which their speed changes from about 300000km/s to zero, they are "at rest". I asked a famous relativity hypnotist if the extremely short lifetime of muons "at rest" could be due to this terrible crash:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...eed30f2c1173a1e
Instead of giving an explanation, the famous relativity hypnotist just stopped referring to the muon lifetime experiment.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
In the muon lifetime experiment the fraud is in measuring the lifetime of muons "at rest":
http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf "In this experiment, we measure two of the basic properties of the muon, namely, its mean lifetime and mass in its rest frame. We measure the decay curve of cosmic-ray muons that have come to rest in a plastic scintillator by looking for electrons produced in their decay."
That is, according to relativists, as muons undergo a terrible crash during which their speed changes from about 300000km/s to zero, they are "at rest". I asked a famous relativity hypnotist if the extremely short lifetime of muons "at rest" could be due to this terrible crash:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...eed30f2c1173a1e
Instead of giving an explanation, the famous relativity hypnotist just stopped referring to the muon lifetime experiment.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
No, you vile deceiver. That paper is a student-level laboratory experiment, with a corresponding low accuracy. It is suitable for demonstration purposes. I already responded to this.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=196685
If you wouldn't keep running away from discussion, and actually used reasoning skills, you would have abandoned the argument a long time ago. However, you have no vested stake in the correctness of emitter theory versus special relativity, so you feel unconstrained by such simple things as truth and reasonability.
You are using Newtonian and anthropomorphic reasoning based on intuition about composite entities and misapplying those "insights" to particles which you have no evidence are not point like. Furthermore, the muons don't decay at the crash or 10^-23 seconds after the crash or 10^-20 seconds after the crash, but a time which is consistent with decays mediated by the Weak Nuclear Force. Beyond the simple fact of this measurement, there is a whole theory of weak force decays which can actually predicts independent of this measurement what the rest-frame and non-rest-frame lifetime of the muon is.
It doesn't matter what Tom Roberts is or says, I myself found these answers a month ago. Your vile words against Tom Roberts don't matter to me. I don't know who he is or what his reputation is, and I certainly have never been "hypnotized" by him. These vile claims of yours have shown you to be a deceiver.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=196685
QUOTE
He has failed to understand that the MIT link is not cutting edge-science but more along the lines of a demonstration. The actual best limits on positive and negative muon lifetimes is much more accurate than possible by this method.
He has failed to do even trivial research. The PDG link below links to Particle Listings in the 2006 Review of Particle Physics which links to LEPTONS in the 2006 Review of Particle Physics which links to μ which has references to for the muon lifetime of:
G. Bardin, et al. "A new measurement of the positive muon lifetime" Physics Letters B 137, p. 135-140 (1984)
K.L.Giovanetti et al. "Mean life of the positive muon" Physical Review D 29, p. 343-348 (1984)
M.P.Balandin et al. "Measurement of the lifetime of the positive muon" Soviet Physics JETP 40, p. 811 (1974) Translated from "Measurement of the lifetime of the positive muon" Physical Review 67, p. 1631-1637 (1974)
J.Duclos, A.Magnon, J.Picard "A new measurement of the muon lifetime" Physics Letters B 47, p. 491-493 (1973)
He has failed to do even trivial research. The PDG link below links to Particle Listings in the 2006 Review of Particle Physics which links to LEPTONS in the 2006 Review of Particle Physics which links to μ which has references to for the muon lifetime of:
G. Bardin, et al. "A new measurement of the positive muon lifetime" Physics Letters B 137, p. 135-140 (1984)
K.L.Giovanetti et al. "Mean life of the positive muon" Physical Review D 29, p. 343-348 (1984)
M.P.Balandin et al. "Measurement of the lifetime of the positive muon" Soviet Physics JETP 40, p. 811 (1974) Translated from "Measurement of the lifetime of the positive muon" Physical Review 67, p. 1631-1637 (1974)
J.Duclos, A.Magnon, J.Picard "A new measurement of the muon lifetime" Physics Letters B 47, p. 491-493 (1973)
If you wouldn't keep running away from discussion, and actually used reasoning skills, you would have abandoned the argument a long time ago. However, you have no vested stake in the correctness of emitter theory versus special relativity, so you feel unconstrained by such simple things as truth and reasonability.
You are using Newtonian and anthropomorphic reasoning based on intuition about composite entities and misapplying those "insights" to particles which you have no evidence are not point like. Furthermore, the muons don't decay at the crash or 10^-23 seconds after the crash or 10^-20 seconds after the crash, but a time which is consistent with decays mediated by the Weak Nuclear Force. Beyond the simple fact of this measurement, there is a whole theory of weak force decays which can actually predicts independent of this measurement what the rest-frame and non-rest-frame lifetime of the muon is.
It doesn't matter what Tom Roberts is or says, I myself found these answers a month ago. Your vile words against Tom Roberts don't matter to me. I don't know who he is or what his reputation is, and I certainly have never been "hypnotized" by him. These vile claims of yours have shown you to be a deceiver.
QUOTE (rpenner+May 8 2007, 04:53 PM)
No, you vile deceiver. That paper is a student-level laboratory experiment, with a corresponding low accuracy. It is suitable for demonstration purposes. I already responded to this.
You did not. Searching the internet and then referring to sources you find is not a response. Do you really believe that your "low accuracy" argument is relevant? Perhaps in a higher accuracy experiment muons would not undergo a terrible crash and their speed would not change from about 300000km/s to zero? What do you think?
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
You did not. Searching the internet and then referring to sources you find is not a response. Do you really believe that your "low accuracy" argument is relevant? Perhaps in a higher accuracy experiment muons would not undergo a terrible crash and their speed would not change from about 300000km/s to zero? What do you think?
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
MR.VALEV
i know a prof.dr. in mathematics what works at IMECC/ CAMPINAS IN mathematics-physics, IN THE SAME LINE OF RESEARCH THAT YOU WORK.IS
A-RELATIVIST.
HIS NAME IS;WALDY ALVES RODRIGUES
e-mail. walrod@ imecc.unicamp.br
HE WAS PUPIL OF PROF.CESAR LATTES that toghether with Occhialini and POWELL
win the NOBEL PRIZE-works on the mesons
i know a prof.dr. in mathematics what works at IMECC/ CAMPINAS IN mathematics-physics, IN THE SAME LINE OF RESEARCH THAT YOU WORK.IS
A-RELATIVIST.
HIS NAME IS;WALDY ALVES RODRIGUES
e-mail. walrod@ imecc.unicamp.br
HE WAS PUPIL OF PROF.CESAR LATTES that toghether with Occhialini and POWELL
win the NOBEL PRIZE-works on the mesons
QUOTE (rpenner+May 8 2007, 04:53 PM)
No, you vile deceiver. That paper is a student-level laboratory experiment, with a corresponding low accuracy. It is suitable for demonstration purposes. I already responded to this.
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=196685
If you wouldn't keep running away from discussion, and actually used reasoning skills, you would have abandoned the argument a long time ago. However, you have no vested stake in the correctness of emitter theory versus special relativity, so you feel unconstrained by such simple things as truth and reasonability.
You are using Newtonian and anthropomorphic reasoning based on intuition about composite entities and misapplying those "insights" to particles which you have no evidence are not point like. Furthermore, the muons don't decay at the crash or 10^-23 seconds after the crash or 10^-20 seconds after the crash, but a time which is consistent with decays mediated by the Weak Nuclear Force. Beyond the simple fact of this measurement, there is a whole theory of weak force decays which can actually predicts independent of this measurement what the rest-frame and non-rest-frame lifetime of the muon is.
It doesn't matter what Tom Roberts is or says, I myself found these answers a month ago. Your vile words against Tom Roberts don't matter to me. I don't know who he is or what his reputation is, and I certainly have never been "hypnotized" by him. These vile claims of yours have shown you to be a deceiver.
But Tom Roberts is the Albert Einstein of our generation. See this and tell me if you are hypnotized:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...1c5cd4c741adeb8?
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=196685
If you wouldn't keep running away from discussion, and actually used reasoning skills, you would have abandoned the argument a long time ago. However, you have no vested stake in the correctness of emitter theory versus special relativity, so you feel unconstrained by such simple things as truth and reasonability.
You are using Newtonian and anthropomorphic reasoning based on intuition about composite entities and misapplying those "insights" to particles which you have no evidence are not point like. Furthermore, the muons don't decay at the crash or 10^-23 seconds after the crash or 10^-20 seconds after the crash, but a time which is consistent with decays mediated by the Weak Nuclear Force. Beyond the simple fact of this measurement, there is a whole theory of weak force decays which can actually predicts independent of this measurement what the rest-frame and non-rest-frame lifetime of the muon is.
It doesn't matter what Tom Roberts is or says, I myself found these answers a month ago. Your vile words against Tom Roberts don't matter to me. I don't know who he is or what his reputation is, and I certainly have never been "hypnotized" by him. These vile claims of yours have shown you to be a deceiver.
But Tom Roberts is the Albert Einstein of our generation. See this and tell me if you are hypnotized:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics...1c5cd4c741adeb8?
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
dear valev
the dr.waldyr alves rodrigues is anti-relativist.
the dr.waldyr alves rodrigues is anti-relativist.
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity: Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"
is FALSE. Other mistakes, camouflages, plagiarisms etc. can be regarded as secondary. If the scientific community wants to get rid of Einstein's relativity (there are signs showing that it does), it should first replace the false principle of constancy of the speed of light with the true principle of variability of the speed of light and draw all the consequences, even if, in the end, this turns out to be an "awful" transition from Einstein to Newton. In the absence of an explicit and universally accepted replacement, any anti-Einstein or beyond-Einstein activities can only consolidate Einstein criminal cult and prolong the agony.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
There is ONLY ONE FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in Einstein's relativity: Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body"
is FALSE. Other mistakes, camouflages, plagiarisms etc. can be regarded as secondary. If the scientific community wants to get rid of Einstein's relativity (there are signs showing that it does), it should first replace the false principle of constancy of the speed of light with the true principle of variability of the speed of light and draw all the consequences, even if, in the end, this turns out to be an "awful" transition from Einstein to Newton. In the absence of an explicit and universally accepted replacement, any anti-Einstein or beyond-Einstein activities can only consolidate Einstein criminal cult and prolong the agony.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Jun 7 2007, 06:54 AM)
- There is [an error] in Einstein's relativity.
- Einstein's principle of constancy of the speed of light ... is FALSE.
- [There are signs showing] the scientific community wants to get rid of Einstein's relativity
- [The scientific community] should first replace the false principle of constancy of the speed of light with the true principle of variability of the speed of light and draw all the consequences, even if, in the end, this turns out to be an "awful" transition from Einstein to Newton.
Where is the experimental physical evidence for any of the above?
Why we believe in Special Relativity: Experimental Support for Einstein’s Theory
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance
But, you don't even understand that:
- Special Relativity isn't even a statement about light but about a symmetry of space and time, so that you have to talk about them as a mere presentations of an indivisible whole, the space-time.
- Noether's theorem and how the experimentally tested Poincare symmetries of space-time lead to familiar conservation laws as natural consequences.
- You haven't identified plagiarism by Einstein.
- Einstein's advance over Lorentz is that Lorentz's theory was limited to light and was metaphysical, while Einstein redefined Newtonian kinematics to be compatible with the tested theory
- Even if Einstein was plagiarist, an imperialist, a communist, a fictional character, a lying used-car salesman, a talking ape, uneducated, guilty of genocide, didn't recycle and smelled funny, that is not evidence that Special Relativity is wrong.
- Even if Special Relativity is wrong, that is not evidence that Newton is right in any particular.
- There is no evidence for "criminal" and "cult" to apply to the group of professionals who use Special Relativity.
But Newton, who is approximately correct at low velocities, is not even close to correct for high-energy effects:
- Newton predicts that Kinetic Energy = (1/2) m v^2. Protons have been measured with kinetic energies of up to 320 EeV (51 Joules) (The Oh-My-God Particle), yet none are seen as faster than light.
- Particle accelerators frequently accelerate particles to energies above 1/2 m c^2 but their speeds don't exceed c.
- High energy muons (and all other unstable particles) last longer than low energy muon (and other particles, mutatis mutandis). This is incompatible with Newtonian theory and also mechanistic intuition. Vials of nitroglycerin more frequently blow up at the more-frequent and more-violent collisions associated with higher speeds, not lower. So neither Newton nor intuition based on macroscopic experiences leads to correct predictions for particle physics. In such cases, the physicist must allow himself to be ruled by experimental results.
- Newton's corpuscular theory of light requires that light speed up in materials of refractive index > 1 but the experimental evidence is the opposite. Cerenkov radiation is the opposite of the Newtonian prediction. Direct measurement is also the opposite of the Newtonian prediction.
- In regards to gravitational bending of light by a mass, Shapiro delay has the wrong sign in Newtonian theory. Newtonian and Einsteinian angular deflection amounts also differ by an experimentally resolvable factor of two.
- The Ritz emitter theory of v' = v + c is more complicated than Special Relativity, and requires new properties just for light. Why should the light particle have a special speed just for it? Electrons and quarks don't have such special speeds.
- The Ritz emitter theory has been directly tested in particle accelerators and astronomical observations. It failed those tests. The test theory of v' = kv + c shows that k is nowhere near 1, but within 10^-9 of 0.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jun 7 2007, 08:34 AM)
Where is the experimental physical evidence for any of the above?
Why we believe in Special Relativity: Experimental Support for Einstein’s Theory
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance
But, you don't even understand that:[LIST]
[*] Special Relativity isn't even a statement about light but about a symmetry of space and time, so that you have to talk about them as a mere presentations of an indivisible whole, the space-time.
Poor you! Your masters have abandoned you (they all have become experts in quantum mechanics) and now there is no one to tell you not to expose old discrediting idiocies like the above one.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
Why we believe in Special Relativity: Experimental Support for Einstein’s Theory
What is the experimental basis of Special Relativity?
Modern Tests of Lorentz Invariance
But, you don't even understand that:[LIST]
[*] Special Relativity isn't even a statement about light but about a symmetry of space and time, so that you have to talk about them as a mere presentations of an indivisible whole, the space-time.
Poor you! Your masters have abandoned you (they all have become experts in quantum mechanics) and now there is no one to tell you not to expose old discrediting idiocies like the above one.
Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Jun 7 2007, 08:59 AM)
Poor you!
I'm feeling no pain.
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Jun 7 2007, 08:59 AM)
Your masters
No such person. I allow myself to be swayed only by evidence and logic.
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Jun 7 2007, 08:59 AM)
have abandoned you
Funny, I don't feel abandoned. Do you have evidence to support this statement?
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Jun 7 2007, 08:59 AM)
(they all have become experts in quantum mechanics)
I myself am an expert in quantum mechanics. I am even well versed in elementary quantum field theory, which is the harmonious union of quantum mechanics and special relativity. Authors like Shenkar and Siegel seem to be happy with both.
QUOTE (Pentcho Valev+Jun 7 2007, 08:59 AM)
and now there is no one to tell you not to expose old discrediting idiocies like the above one.
Just exact where is the idiocy? What was exposed? Do you answer questions? Did you ever abandon your crusade against the second law of thermodynamics? Is there any evidence in favor of Ritz over Maxwell/Einstein/Dirac?
Valev-would be yours thoughts in physics a return to the maxwell 's electromagnetism,the space and time of lorentz,measured by the existence of medium,in the case the ether,it this?
Hello, mott.carl
I believe Pentcho Valev is still in support of Walter Ritz's 1908 "emitter (or ballistic) theory." But he doesn't do physics in his posts but biased and untrustworthy literary analysis, aka "Lawyers' Tricks." -- I don't think he's very good at it.
See this Mar 23, 2007 Post of Pentcho Valev
And this June 15, 2006 Post from Pentcho Valev
My April 13th 2006 post to Pentcho Valev
This page says Pentcho Valev has been posting anti-Einstein pages since 2004 and anti-Thermodynamics posts since at least 1997.
Good luck in trying to have a conversation with Pentcho Valev.
I believe Pentcho Valev is still in support of Walter Ritz's 1908 "emitter (or ballistic) theory." But he doesn't do physics in his posts but biased and untrustworthy literary analysis, aka "Lawyers' Tricks." -- I don't think he's very good at it.
See this Mar 23, 2007 Post of Pentcho Valev
And this June 15, 2006 Post from Pentcho Valev
My April 13th 2006 post to Pentcho Valev
This page says Pentcho Valev has been posting anti-Einstein pages since 2004 and anti-Thermodynamics posts since at least 1997.
Good luck in trying to have a conversation with Pentcho Valev.
hi,rpenner
do you believe in the existence of mathematical tools than can us to do understand the STR,as quaternions,biquaternions?Would be a fundamental mathematics to explain the origin of the STR.IS POSSIBLE?
just i understand not,because mr.valev,is wanting return to the past.
i know not if all the einstennian theory,is complete,but it electrodynamics is very important,to understand the mechanics and the electromagnetism.after Dirac
shown the importancec of STR to the QM.
do you believe in the existence of mathematical tools than can us to do understand the STR,as quaternions,biquaternions?Would be a fundamental mathematics to explain the origin of the STR.IS POSSIBLE?
just i understand not,because mr.valev,is wanting return to the past.
i know not if all the einstennian theory,is complete,but it electrodynamics is very important,to understand the mechanics and the electromagnetism.after Dirac
shown the importancec of STR to the QM.
Yes, there is such mathematics.
Newtonian kinematics->Galilean group
Einsteinian kinematics->Poincaré group (also known as the Inhomogenous Lorentz Group or ISO(3,1) )
STR -> All physical theories must be invariant under the Poincaré group
1) Invariant under rotations -> which leads to conservation of angular momentum
2) Invariant under translations in space -> which leads to conservation of linear momentum
3) Invarient under translations in time -> which leads to conservation of mass-energy
4) Invarient under "boosts" -- changes of inertial frame -> which leads to conservation of the poistion of center of mass to a particular inertia path
http://www.weburbia.com/pg/symmetry.htm
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/boosts.html
GR points out that SR is just a local theory, just like Newtonian theory just works for objects moving slowly with respect to each other.
Newtonian kinematics->Galilean group
Einsteinian kinematics->Poincaré group (also known as the Inhomogenous Lorentz Group or ISO(3,1) )
STR -> All physical theories must be invariant under the Poincaré group
1) Invariant under rotations -> which leads to conservation of angular momentum
2) Invariant under translations in space -> which leads to conservation of linear momentum
3) Invarient under translations in time -> which leads to conservation of mass-energy
4) Invarient under "boosts" -- changes of inertial frame -> which leads to conservation of the poistion of center of mass to a particular inertia path
http://www.weburbia.com/pg/symmetry.htm
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/boosts.html
GR points out that SR is just a local theory, just like Newtonian theory just works for objects moving slowly with respect to each other.
rpenner
thank you very much for your reply
do you believe that the quaternions and biquaternions can to be the mathematical essence of STR and GTR,respectively.we ciuld to imagine that the operations
as multiplications( that have the non-commutativity,as property,and the quaternions imply.rotation and translation rotations,and has a interne symmetry,that is the connections of space and time in spacetime continuos in 4-dimensions,so does appear the left-handed and right-handed spins.these differences in these spins,is possible to measure the contractions of space and time-dilatation.then the spacetime is an elastic entity,and not absolute.
Then must exist a relation between the quantic enteglament ( spin pairs) with
the twin paradox?
the biquaternions used as mathematical essence to constructions of curvatures of spacetime,in riemannian manifold.and explain the algebric motions in non-euclidean geometries that explain the variations of spacetimes,that there already
"a priori" connecteds.maybe cayley and clifford penetrated in that area.
did you understand?
i awaiting my oppinion
many thanks
thank you very much for your reply
do you believe that the quaternions and biquaternions can to be the mathematical essence of STR and GTR,respectively.we ciuld to imagine that the operations
as multiplications( that have the non-commutativity,as property,and the quaternions imply.rotation and translation rotations,and has a interne symmetry,that is the connections of space and time in spacetime continuos in 4-dimensions,so does appear the left-handed and right-handed spins.these differences in these spins,is possible to measure the contractions of space and time-dilatation.then the spacetime is an elastic entity,and not absolute.
Then must exist a relation between the quantic enteglament ( spin pairs) with
the twin paradox?
the biquaternions used as mathematical essence to constructions of curvatures of spacetime,in riemannian manifold.and explain the algebric motions in non-euclidean geometries that explain the variations of spacetimes,that there already
"a priori" connecteds.maybe cayley and clifford penetrated in that area.
did you understand?
i awaiting my oppinion
many thanks
QUOTE (rpenner+Jun 8 2007, 03:15 PM)
STR -> All physical theories must be invariant under the Poincaré group
1) Invariant under rotations -> which leads to conservation of angular momentum
2) Invariant under translations in space -> which leads to conservation of linear momentum
3) Invarient under translations in time -> which leads to conservation of mass-energy
4) Invarient under "boosts" -- changes of inertial frame -> which leads to conservation of the poistion of center of mass to a particular inertia path
This is really how it is not despite all mathematical elegancy of the Noether's theorems. That is "physics" in up-side down mode. Ptolemaic in a simbolic way of meaning.
Nothing depends on kinematical frames of references. On the contrary, "physics" (if any) should explain such frames from a deeper (dynamic) level of Nature. Even beside the question of c as a kinematical absolute or constant, which infact is not.
Kinematical-geometrical paradigm is sterile and has to be totally abandoned. Despite tones of textbooks and journal papers, during a century it was producing nothing really concrete. Or if I have to be direct, it is not a right phyiscs of "high speeds or of strong gravity" as they constantly claim.
On the other hand, some return to Newton seems to be quite impossible as well. Simple reason: mass (whatever it is) is changable. Even in the photon or graviton case. Both mass and speed aspect of its momenta is changing constantly during its "motion". So we need a more exact cosmodynamics which also must be the natural connection of both macro and micro domains of Nature.
Something simple, clear and elegant indeed.
1) Invariant under rotations -> which leads to conservation of angular momentum
2) Invariant under translations in space -> which leads to conservation of linear momentum
3) Invarient under translations in time -> which leads to conservation of mass-energy
4) Invarient under "boosts" -- changes of inertial frame -> which leads to conservation of the poistion of center of mass to a particular inertia path
This is really how it is not despite all mathematical elegancy of the Noether's theorems. That is "physics" in up-side down mode. Ptolemaic in a simbolic way of meaning.
Nothing depends on kinematical frames of references. On the contrary, "physics" (if any) should explain such frames from a deeper (dynamic) level of Nature. Even beside the question of c as a kinematical absolute or constant, which infact is not.
Kinematical-geometrical paradigm is sterile and has to be totally abandoned. Despite tones of textbooks and journal papers, during a century it was producing nothing really concrete. Or if I have to be direct, it is not a right phyiscs of "high speeds or of strong gravity" as they constantly claim.
On the other hand, some return to Newton seems to be quite impossible as well. Simple reason: mass (whatever it is) is changable. Even in the photon or graviton case. Both mass and speed aspect of its momenta is changing constantly during its "motion". So we need a more exact cosmodynamics which also must be the natural connection of both macro and micro domains of Nature.
Something simple, clear and elegant indeed.
the STR can only be constructed in universe of 4-dimensions ,as the quaternions,that implies 3-vectores(space),that are the real parts and 1-scalar)time) that is one coordinated given by a imaginary(is the imaginary),into of
structure of complex numbers,projected in a sphere S^3 embedded into R^4?
requested for my daughter.
structure of complex numbers,projected in a sphere S^3 embedded into R^4?
requested for my daughter.
QUOTE (Guest_mott.carl+Jun 9 2007, 06:52 PM)
the STR can only be constructed in universe of 4-dimensions ,as the quaternions,that implies 3-vectores(space),that are the real parts and 1-scalar)time) that is one coordinated given by a imaginary(is the imaginary),into of
structure of complex numbers,projected in a sphere S^3 embedded into R^4?
requested for my daughter.
As for your daugther, all you said is Minkowski kind of interpretation of c-kinematic principle but now with quaternions instead of 4-vectors, right?
There was, at the time, even more ingenious interpretation of Vladimir Varicak. In it c was a an absolute curvature of one hyperbolic (Lobachevskie's) kinematic world. Interestingly, time would be an intrinsic geomterical property of such a 3-D space.
And I would say, all the so-called SR in fact already can be found in generaly understood Newton second law and outside of all kinematical confusion about time and space scale, well
F = dp/dt
only now with the momentum p which should be dependant on v by say Lorentz's gamma. But even that is not quite right, because m also is dependent on G-potential as it follows from one simple application of E = mc^2 on G-field (Nordstrom exp-factor).
And all that said are some of theoretical reasons and postulates of one "Wave Cosmodynamics".
Regards
structure of complex numbers,projected in a sphere S^3 embedded into R^4?
requested for my daughter. As for your daugther, all you said is Minkowski kind of interpretation of c-kinematic principle but now with quaternions instead of 4-vectors, right?
There was, at the time, even more ingenious interpretation of Vladimir Varicak. In it c was a an absolute curvature of one hyperbolic (Lobachevskie's) kinematic world. Interestingly, time would be an intrinsic geomterical property of such a 3-D space.
And I would say, all the so-called SR in fact already can be found in generaly understood Newton second law and outside of all kinematical confusion about time and space scale, well
F = dp/dt
only now with the momentum p which should be dependant on v by say Lorentz's gamma. But even that is not quite right, because m also is dependent on G-potential as it follows from one simple application of E = mc^2 on G-field (Nordstrom exp-factor).
And all that said are some of theoretical reasons and postulates of one "Wave Cosmodynamics".
Regards
QUOTE (Turanyanin+Jun 9 2007, 01:54 PM)
Nothing depends on kinematical frames of references.
That is the Relativity in Galilean, Special or General Relativity.
But because nothing depends on these frames, we are free to choose which ever one we find suitable and the physics do not change. It is possible to use mathematics which is frame-free, but when you need numbers, you need coordinates which means you need a frame (the laboratory frame).
mott.carl -
whether you use quaternions or vectors, the physical theory is the same.
I like tensors.
That is the Relativity in Galilean, Special or General Relativity.
But because nothing depends on these frames, we are free to choose which ever one we find suitable and the physics do not change. It is possible to use mathematics which is frame-free, but when you need numbers, you need coordinates which means you need a frame (the laboratory frame).
mott.carl -
whether you use quaternions or vectors, the physical theory is the same.
I like tensors.
QUOTE (rpenner+Jun 9 2007, 08:33 PM)
That is the Relativity in Galilean, Special or General Relativity.
Seeing from such a perspective "Wave Cosmodynamics" would be kind of "hyper-relativity" then
Really, I am aware that Galilei scientific paradigm was fully justified at that time. But its real meaning was fulfilled only through Newton dynamics and that was a real basis of the "mechanical revolution", so to speak.
My insisting on word "dynamics" has something of healing process, if you allow me. Even c = dx/dt should be seen as a factor of the confusion.
Regards
Seeing from such a perspective "Wave Cosmodynamics" would be kind of "hyper-relativity" then
Really, I am aware that Galilei scientific paradigm was fully justified at that time. But its real meaning was fulfilled only through Newton dynamics and that was a real basis of the "mechanical revolution", so to speak.
My insisting on word "dynamics" has something of healing process, if you allow me. Even c = dx/dt should be seen as a factor of the confusion.
Regards
EINSTEIN INVENTED SPECIAL RELATIVITY BECAUSE HE OBSERVED THAT SPACE COULD ONLY BE DE MARKED BY MATERIAL FRAMES. HE CALLED THESE FRAMES OF REFERENCE. UNFORTUNATELY WHEN HE CLAIMED ALL MOTIONS ARE RELATIVE MOTIONS HE ELIMINATED ANY MOVEMENT THROUGH SPACE. BUT THIS WAS HIS MISTAKE. 
JUST BECAUSE WE CANNOT SEE SPACE DOES NOT MEAN WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT MOTION THROUGH IT DOES NOT EXIST. THE STATION DOES NOT COME TO THE TRAIN. THE TRAIN MOVES AND HOW DO WE KNOW? IT ACCELERATES AND EXPERIENCES WEIGHT WHILE THE STATION DOES NOT. IF WE DO NOT IGNORE HOW THE TRAIN ACHIEVED MOTION WHICH IS THROUGH ACCELERATION WE SEE THAT IT IS MOVING THROUGH SPACE BECAUSE OF IT.
ONLY THE TRAINS CLOCK WILL GO SLOW WHEN AT RELATIVISTIC SPEEDS. THE STATIONS CLOCK WILL NOT CHANGE AT ALL AND THIS WILL BE OBSERVED BY THE TRAIN AS THE STATION'S CLOCK GOING FAST IN COMPARISON.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
JUST BECAUSE WE CANNOT SEE SPACE DOES NOT MEAN WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT MOTION THROUGH IT DOES NOT EXIST. THE STATION DOES NOT COME TO THE TRAIN. THE TRAIN MOVES AND HOW DO WE KNOW? IT ACCELERATES AND EXPERIENCES WEIGHT WHILE THE STATION DOES NOT. IF WE DO NOT IGNORE HOW THE TRAIN ACHIEVED MOTION WHICH IS THROUGH ACCELERATION WE SEE THAT IT IS MOVING THROUGH SPACE BECAUSE OF IT.
ONLY THE TRAINS CLOCK WILL GO SLOW WHEN AT RELATIVISTIC SPEEDS. THE STATIONS CLOCK WILL NOT CHANGE AT ALL AND THIS WILL BE OBSERVED BY THE TRAIN AS THE STATION'S CLOCK GOING FAST IN COMPARISON.
MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT FELL --
QUOTE (Nick+Jun 10 2007, 07:34 AM)
UNFORTUNATELY WHEN HE CLAIMED ALL MOTIONS ARE RELATIVE MOTIONS HE ELIMINATED ANY MOVEMENT THROUGH SPACE. BUT THIS WAS HIS MISTAKE.
I think you are still blinded with kinematical paradigm and because of that you think you make some kind of wake-up "koans" but you really don't see the fundamental nature of change I'm trying to speak about. In simple words, you beleive in an absolute motion at c.
Or if you wish, kinematical motion really is always relative (read rpenner's very clear scholar posts, I also am glad always to learn, to read and re-examin the basics) because by definition v = dx/dt whereas both x and t are reference dependent by both its definition and its scale. Putting limit on v such as c you really have to reach SR, i.e. Lorentz's transforms etc. Or in other words, kinematical aether, an absolute reference doesn't exist.
Only problem is, out there the "inertial frames" or "kinematical motions" are pure abstractions. Even that would be harmless when science wouldn't mix the domains trying to input kinematical constrains into the fundamentally dynamic domains such as EM, QM, nuclear and gravity phenomena.
And again, part of the confusion started with assuming c = dx/dt which is not! c is not kinematical constant at all, and fundamentally speaking it is not even a physical constant. Namely, it is only a part of one real natural constant
H_ea = G/c^2 = 7.4E-28 m/kg (in honor of O. Heaviside)
and even that only via well known EM space/vacuum values epsilon_0 and mu_0.
So surprisingly, light doesn't "move" and doesn't "fall"; it is the "Ptolemaic picture" of both SR & GR but of yours as well. And Space is a "highly dynamic entity" indeed.
Cosmos follows a different "physics". To some extend, at this stage of an acceptance of new paradigm, many old conceptions seem to act as an obstacles. Only because of that they should be abandoned and even forgotten.
For a while at least.
I think you are still blinded with kinematical paradigm and because of that you think you make some kind of wake-up "koans" but you really don't see the fundamental nature of change I'm trying to speak about. In simple words, you beleive in an absolute motion at c.
Or if you wish, kinematical motion really is always relative (read rpenner's very clear scholar posts, I also am glad always to learn, to read and re-examin the basics) because by definition v = dx/dt whereas both x and t are reference dependent by both its definition and its scale. Putting limit on v such as c you really have to reach SR, i.e. Lorentz's transforms etc. Or in other words, kinematical aether, an absolute reference doesn't exist.
Only problem is, out there the "inertial frames" or "kinematical motions" are pure abstractions. Even that would be harmless when science wouldn't mix the domains trying to input kinematical constrains into the fundamentally dynamic domains such as EM, QM, nuclear and gravity phenomena.
And again, part of the confusion started with assuming c = dx/dt which is not! c is not kinematical constant at all, and fundamentally speaking it is not even a physical constant. Namely, it is only a part of one real natural constant
H_ea = G/c^2 = 7.4E-28 m/kg (in honor of O. Heaviside)
and even that only via well known EM space/vacuum values epsilon_0 and mu_0.
So surprisingly, light doesn't "move" and doesn't "fall"; it is the "Ptolemaic picture" of both SR & GR but of yours as well. And Space is a "highly dynamic entity" indeed.
Cosmos follows a different "physics". To some extend, at this stage of an acceptance of new paradigm, many old conceptions seem to act as an obstacles. Only because of that they should be abandoned and even forgotten.
For a while at least.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.