This is not how you make friends. That is not how you respect a genius. He'd turn in his grave if he saw this. And he'd write an equation stating how he did it.

GO EINSTEIN!

QUOTE (Nick @ Jun 1 2006, 12:51 AM) from http://www.physorg.com/news65195294.html
***********
Einstein said that where time slows down in gravity light correspondingly slows down. So light on its approach to a black hole would slow down and come to a complete halt on the edge where time ends. This is proof that black holes are not what the theory says they are. Stephen Hawking knows that black hole theory fails. He just didn't go far enough. He says they fail at the singularity bu what he overlooked is that they fail at their surface also.
************

Refreshing thoughts. But I disagree with an idea of “time slows down” etc. I could be a sophist and asking: what time really is if it could be stopped!? Problem is in the core of “mechanical civilization”: using dynamics/motion of one system (clock) to mesaure dynamics/motion of another one and claiming it is “time” (or even dimension, space-time etc.). For me it is an obvious recursion, which leads to circulus vitiosus. What really failed in the strong field domain r_g = 1 is SR/GR itself; r_g = GM/c^2. That is a wrong theory from the very beginning. Let me say: totally wrong kinematical/geometrical paradigm. Linearization of GR trough linearized metrics is a mathematical trick (similar to the QED renormalization). Real linear gravity is Haeviside-like vector gravitodynamics (my very youth idea and totally independent work, but during past decade very actual again – Nielsen, Jefimenko, Strelcov and recently Tajmar & de Matos, de Mees, Nduriri etc.). Some of the above authors stay in line of SR, some of them still in linearized GR but I totally stepped out (but from Newton’s picture definitely). In my very first (1984/2004) article exists gravitodynamic equation of motion and it seems that incorporates one more general scale factor, say hi-factor, i.e. 1/sqrt[exp(2r_g/r) – (v/c)^2]. Lorentz gamma, only formally, follows in case r_g = 0. In reality always is exp(2r_g/r) >= 1 because it could be beta >= 1, i.e. v>=c. There is no SR limits at all! And graviphoton could, or even must possess “rest”/proper mass. Moreover, I’m pretty convinced that GP-B data analyzing already putted serious doubt on GR, so as Pioneer’s trajectories anomaly as well. But hi-vector gravitodynamics is here as so natural, true and in final an elegant picture.

Just a few words considering my further (till now) idea development (published in a less formal internet way). Because gravitomagnetic B_g vector has dimensions of frequency (T^-1) and general gravitostatic/electric vector E_g has dimension of L^-1 which could be seen as a wave vector, I see that as a “cosmic hint”: Vector gravity (as Faraday-Maxwell field concept in general) is on the surface of phenomena, but one non-linear, even a-temporal (similar to A. Sorli recently), wave gravity-space at the deepest roots of Nature. Mathematical difficulties considering non-linearity are obvious, but physical intuition leads me to the, say, quantum gravitomagnetic resonance - direct and for the first time natural way towards Planck scale (values). Also gravity mechanism and origin of mass could be seen there altogether.

In a way, I’m out of TR-antiTR debate. For me, it is an old, last millennia closed question. I want to see this exciting moment as a coming Future/Change. Mr. Valev’s style is far of mine but sometime he puts few wake-up lines. But paradoxically, it seems to me that he has a problem with A. Einstein personally. Einstein himself was a respective researcher and with some undisputable results (when thinks in a dynamical mode especially, e.g. photoelectric effect, the debate about real meaning of quantum reality etc.). The iconoclasty around his name hardly was of his own. But also as many others, he completely belongs to the XX century confusing picture (which was produced by him in part). Let me express one prophecy: many of them will be forgotten and the next generation, and even very soon, will put them in a deep shadow. But some of them will be rediscovered again and again (e.g. Kopernik, Kepler, Newton, Boscovich, Faraday, Tesla, Haeviside, Ciolkovsky, de Broglie… As any list, this is pretty subjective, but it reveals “dynamics over any a priori kinematics” attitude of the author).

Sorry for to much lines. Generally, it is out of my habit and surely out of the main forum’s idea. Being out of “academia”, but in the core of the mentioned theme and this “critical phase” time, I’ve choused this channel during last month or so to represent some of long term researching, clear insights and plausible results of mine. But now I’ll stop at least for a while. Thank you all for your time.

With best whishes,
Dragan N. Turanyanin
turanyanin@yahoo.com

Josh,

Thanks.



I love Einstein more when he talks about gOD. It's so deep.... Of all his aspects, his spiritual aspect is what I like the most....

No, I don't hate Einstein. In fact, I'm using his inventions so I can't just be angry at him.

But I called him a gay and I told him he's sleeping with men....

Now I have to face him.

GO EINSTEIN!!!

*Einstein rolls back in his proper position*

Einstein was not the greatest physicist of all time. Well, one could argue that he was, but its not a clear cut victory by any means. I think everyone loves Einstein because he is the symbol of genius. He was the eccentric brilliant man, and everyone hears about Einstein at such a young age. What about physicists like Maxwell, Dirac, Heisenberg, Schrodinger, Newton, Lagrange, Hamilton, or my personal favorite, Richard Feynmen? They are all great physicists who have had just as large of an impact as Einstein in the scientific community, but besides Feynmen, not many have had even close to Einstein in the public eye.

Now, back to the topic at hand. The idea's expressed by Einstein were not new. The Lorentz transformations were around for several years before Einstein's paper. Poincare had similar ideas to those of Einstein. What Einstein did that others did not do is use the correct (I don't like saying correct) assumptions, and reasons behind the theory. The reason the speed of light is found to be a constant from all sources no matter the speed actually comes from Maxwell's equations. Just the other day I was reading the introduction to a Lawrence Krauss book and he explained it very well. One of the great features of classical electromagnetism is that one can calculate the speed of light from constants that describe electricity and magnetism done in experiments unrelated to the speed of light. Now, it makes sense that no matter where you do these experiments these constants of nature should have the same value. Whether the experiments were done at rest compared to the earth, or the sun, or no matter what time of year (direction of the path of the earths motion, etc...) the values for these constants should be the same. So it makes no sense at all that the speed of light would be different in different inertial frames. Now, using this correct interpretation, along with some of the mathematics done by other physicists Einstein revolutionized physics (and more work later one done by people like Minkowski). It took about a generation for Einstein's ideas to be accepted into the general physics community, as it does for all revolutionary ideas (the older physicists who are to stubborn to accept it must all die). Einstein's nobel prize should have been for relativity, as most people incorrectly think it was, but even at the time of his nobel price it was to controversial, so they gave it to him for the photoelectric effect, which was one of his very minor controbutions.