Pentcho Valev

Това е тест в Айнщайниана и ти се провали на него. Умните релативисти знаят че експериментът на Майкелсън-Морли, преди намесата на Fitzgerald и Lorentz, потвърждава c'=c+v и отхвърля с'=c. Който обаче бъде хванат да твърди това което ти твърдиш, се обявява за глупав релативист и функциите му в Айнщайниана се ограничават до това да пее "Divine Einstein" и "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity": http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! He explained the photo-electric effect, And launched quantum physics with his intellect! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel -- He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein -- Egad, could that guy derive! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! Brownian motion, my true devotion, He mastered back in aught-five! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive! We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity. Einstein's postulates imply That planes are shorter when they fly. Their clocks are slowed by time dilation And look warped from aberration. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity. Пенчо Вълев pvalev@yahoo.com

Не точно. Следният аргумент е валиден: ПРЕДПОСТАВКА: Скоростта на светлината варира с гравитационния потенциал, V, в съответствие с уравнението c'=c(1+V/c^2). ЗАКЛЮЧЕНИЕ: Скоростта на светлината варира със скоростта на наблюдателя, v, в съответствие с уравнението c'=c+v. И двете уравнения, c'=c(1+V/c^2) и c'=c+v, принадлежат на емисионната теория на Нютон. Пенчо Вълев pvalev@yahoo.com

Що за глупости. Ти психолог ли си или физик? Какво значение в случая има за какво е бил замислен експериментът на Майкелсън-Морли? През 1887 г., когато спасителната ad hoc хипотеза на Fitzgerald и Lorentz за скъсяване на дължините още я няма, нулевият резултат на експеримента еднозначно потвърждава зависимостта на скоростта на светлината от скоростта на източника (c'=c+v съгласно емисионната теория на Нютон) и отхвърля независимостта на скоростта на светлината от скоростта на източника (c'=c, бъдещия втори постулат на Айнщайн). Това е ФИЗИЧЕСКИ факт, той се доказва и е напълно независим от замислите, настроенията, вярванията и т.н. на Майкелсън, Морли и всички останали. Пенчо Вълев pvalev@yahoo.com

Ето едно кратко резюме. Пространство-времето е обобщение на абсурдните следствия на погрешния втори постулат на Айнщайн от 1905 г. То влиза в общата теория но самият втори постулат, отделно взет, не влиза - през 1907 Айнщайн тайно го зарязва като приема че скоростта на светлината варира с гравитационния потенциал, V, в съответствие с уравнението c'=c(1+V/c^2) зададено от емисионната теория на Нютон. Така, що се касае до скоростта на светлината, от 1907 до 1915 Айнщайн ползва емисионната теория, после слага един коефициент, 2, и уравнението окончателно става c'=c(1+2V/c^2). Може да се докаже че "the gravitational redshift factor", 1+V/c^2, потвърден експериментално през 1960 от Pound и Rebka, е в съгласие с c'=c(1+V/c^2) и отхвърля както c'=c(1+2V/c^2) така и погрешния втори постулат на Айнщайн от 1905 г. (разбира се в шизофренния свят на Айнщайниана всички експерименти славно потвърждават Divine Albert's Divine Theory и опровергават всички други теории): http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows that, 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 and to which we have already frequently referred, 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. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR." Пенчо Вълев pvalev@yahoo.com

Е как да няма нищо фатално ако скоростта на вълната зависи от скоростта на наблюдателя? В Айнщайниана често правят аналогия между морските вълни и светлинните вълни, и ти ако беше смислен човек досега трябваше да обясниш, с физически термини, защо при първите скоростта на вълната очевидно зависи от скоростта на наблюдателя а при вторите не зависи. Или още не си видял проблема или имаш дългогодишна практика на измъкване с припълзяване. Що се отнася до "приятеля" който "нищо не разбира от Айнщайновата теория", той е един от най-умните жреци на Айнщайниана (би трябвало да си чел умните си учители). Ето какво казва за експеримента на Michelson-Morley и емисионната теория на Нютон още един такъв умен "приятел": http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/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." Пенчо Вълев pvalev@yahoo.com

Ти хубаво се самоцитираш но ако приемаш че 'с' е "скоростта на светлината в системата на наблюдателя" в случая когато "източникът се движи със скорост v към наблюдателя", то ти заобикаляш съществения проблем и досаждаш с глупостите от учебниците. А същественият проблем е че "скоростта на светлината в системата на наблюдателя" може и да е с'=с+v, съгласно емисионната теория на Нютон. Сега нямам време но все пак ще предложа един цитат от Banesh Hoffmann, апостол на Айнщайн. Прочети го внимателно и помисли върху това което той казва за експеримента на Michelson-Morley. Утре ще имам повече време за дискусия: http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

'с' спрямо какво? Източника? Наблюдателя? Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Отдавна е изтекла тази вода - жреците на Айнщайниана са наясно и даже правят пари и кариера като отричат пространство-времето: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html NEW SCIENTIST: "Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time. IT WAS a speech that changed the way we think of space and time. The year was 1908, and the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski had been trying to make sense of Albert Einstein's hot new idea - what we now know as special relativity - describing how things shrink as they move faster and time becomes distorted. "Henceforth space by itself and time by itself are doomed to fade into the mere shadows," Minkowski proclaimed, "and only a union of the two will preserve an independent reality." And so space-time - the malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter - was born. It is a concept that has served us well, but if physicist Petr Horava is right, it may be no more than a mirage. (...) Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser." http://www.homevalley.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135:its-likely-that-times-are-changing "Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce. (...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the task of finding the true reality obscured by the spacetime mirage. (...) What he and other pioneers on the spacetime frontiers have seen coming is an intellectual crisis. The approaches of the past seem insufficiently powerful to meet the challenges remaining from Einstein's century - such as finding a harmonious mathematical marriage for relativity with quantum mechanics the way Minkowski unified space and time. And more recently physicists have been forced to confront the embarrassment of not knowing what makes up the vast bulk of matter and energy in the universe. They remain in the dark about the nature of the dark energy that drives the universe to expand at an accelerating rate. Efforts to explain the dark energy's existence and intensity have been ambitious but fruitless. To Albrecht, the dark energy mystery suggests that it's time for physics to drop old prejudices about how nature's laws ought to be and search instead for how they really are. And that might mean razing Minkowski's arena and rebuilding it from a new design. It seems to me like it's a time in the development of physics, says Albrecht, where it's time to look at how we think about space and time very differently." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001661/ MINKOWSKI SPACE-TIME: A GLORIOUS NON-ENTITY Harvey R. Brown, Oliver Pooley "It is argued that Minkowski space-time cannot serve as the deep structure within a "constructive" version of the special theory of relativity, contrary to widespread opinion in the philosophical community." http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion Craig Callender in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN: "Einstein mounted the next assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity. According to his special theory of relativity, what events are happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared, "are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity, which extends special relativity to situations where the force of gravity operates. Gravity distorts time, so that a second's passage here may not mean the same thing as a second's passage there. Only in rare cases is it possible to synchronize clocks and have them stay synchronized, even in principle. You cannot generally think of the world as unfolding, tick by tick, according to a single time parameter. In extreme situations, the world might not be carvable into instants of time at all. It then becomes impossible to say that an event happened before or after another." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html "General relativity knits together space, time and gravity. Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the Mediterranean in Marseille, France. (...) It is still not clear who is right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and matter." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of "now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes. (...) I was, I confess, a happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such rigid doses. (...) Now consider the passage of time. Is there a comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one. We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Я да видим докъде си стигнала с физическото мислене. Имаме вълни (светлинни, морски) и наблюдател (напр. стоящ до глезените във вода на брега на морето) до когото те достигат. В един момент наблюдателят тръгва срещу вълните и установява че сега гребените го удрят по-често, т.е. честотата спрямо него се е увеличила. Дали това означава че гребените са увеличили скоростта си по отношение на наблюдателя, т.е. че скоростта на вълната зависи от скоростта на наблюдателя? Поне за морските вълни това изглежда очевидно но е фатално за Айнщайниана. Затова жреците на Айнщайниана учат че дължината на вълната зависи от скоростта на наблюдателя - звучи идиотски но няма друго спасение за Айнщайниана: http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html "Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide. The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)." (Жреците махнаха първия цитат от интернет но допреди 2-3 месеца той си беше там и демонстрираше интелигентността на почитателите на Айнщайн.) Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

Ето ти и един ПОЛИТОЛОГ (не в България за съжаление) който много лошо хапе Айнщайн и Айнщайниана като цяло: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880 Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78 Peter Hayes: "In the interwar period there was a significant school of thought that repudiated Einstein's theory of relativity on the grounds that it contained elementary inconsistencies. Some of these critics held extreme right-wing and anti-Semitic views, and this has tended to discredit their technical objections to relativity as being scientifically shallow. This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. The implications of this argument are examined with respect to Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper's accounts of the philosophy of science. (...) The prediction that clocks will move at different rates is particularly well known, and the problem of explaining how this can be so without violating the principle of relativity is particularly obvious. The clock paradox, however, is only one of a number of simple objections that have been raised to different aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much of this criticism is quite apart from and often predates the apparent contradiction between relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is rare to find any attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by professional physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a general response to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by asserting that Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain why is so difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the argument. In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified, highly complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the theory can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a shallow understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading popular accounts of the theory. (...) The argument for complexity reverses the scientific preference for simplicity. Faced with obvious inconsistencies, the simple response is to conclude that Einstein's claims for the explanatory scope of the special and general theory are overstated. To conclude instead that that relativity theory is right for reasons that are highly complex is to replace Occam's razor with a potato masher. (...) The defence of complexity implies that the novice wishing to enter the profession of theoretical physics must accept relativity on faith. It implicitly concedes that, without an understanding of relativity theory's higher complexities, it appears illogical, which means that popular "explanations" of relativity are necessarily misleading. But given Einstein's fame, physicists do not approach the theory for the first time once they have developed their expertise. Rather, they are exposed to and probably examined on popular explanations of relativity in their early training. How are youngsters new to the discipline meant to respond to these accounts? Are they misled by false explanations and only later inculcated with true ones? What happens to those who are not misled? Are they supposed to accept relativity merely on the grounds of authority? The argument of complexity suggests that to pass the first steps necessary to join the physics profession, students must either be willing to suspend disbelief and go along with a theory that appears illogical; or fail to notice the apparent inconsistencies in the theory; or notice the inconsistencies and maintain a guilty silence in the belief that this merely shows that they are unable to understand the theory. The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. (...) The argument that Einstein fomented an ideological rather than a scientific revolution helps to explain of one of the features of this revolution that puzzled Kuhn: despite the apparent scope of the general theory, very little has come out of it. Viewing relativity theory as an ideology also helps to account for Poppers doubts over whether special theory can be retained, given experimental results in quantum mechanics and Einsteins questionable approach to defining simultaneity. Both Kuhn and Popper have looked to the other branch of the theory - Popper to the general and Kuhn to the special - to try and retain their view of Einstein as a revolutionary scientist. According to the view proposed here, this only indicates how special and general theories function together as an ideology, as when one side of the theory is called into question, the other can be called upon to rescue it. The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science. These conclusions are of considerable interest to both theoretical physics and to social epistemology. It would, however, be naive to think that theoretical physicists will take the slightest notice of them." Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com