Prev: Chaos in the solar system
Next: The differences between a preferred frame and an inertial frame.
From: Pentcho Valev on 12 Jul 2010 01:18
Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis
that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
does:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
"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."

Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so
implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.303.html
NATURE: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
squared."

(Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property
is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general
relativity...")

Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's
assertion should be discussed. The rest of the world couldn't care
less about any analogy between light and cannonballs.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Michael Helland on 12 Jul 2010 01:26
On Jul 11, 10:18 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis
> that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
> does:


As they say around here, Dead on arrival.

Einstein recognized the limits of Newton's physics and a domain which
required its own mathematical theory.

Many seem to believe that Einstein's physics are somewhat Universal,
and will not suffer the same fate of being limited and succeeded by
another.

How naive.

The fact of the matter is Hubble redshift is empirical evidence of
changes in the fabric of space time over cosmological distances: that
relativity "as-is" is only in agreement with observations where Hubble
redshift is NOT observed.
From: Osher Doctorow on 12 Jul 2010 01:43
See also section 401.0 of my Quantum Gravity thread, which has
somewhat analogous results about Bohr-Sommerfeld vs Dirac theory
related to recent research from Serbia.

Osher Doctorow

On Jul 11, 10:18 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis
> that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
> does:
From: nuny on 12 Jul 2010 04:55
On Jul 11, 10:18 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Einstein's relativity started with the rejection of Newton's thesis
> that the speed of light varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs
> does:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
> "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."
>
> Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so
> implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:

Complete nonsense.

> http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.303.html
> NATURE: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
> light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
> squared."

Not "light" as in "electromagnetic radiation", "light" as in "not
heavy". The article is about dropping collections of atoms in the BEC
state. It does not involve the effect of gravitation on *massless*
quanta of electromagnetic radiation.

> (Don't be misled by the lie that immediately follows: "That property
> is the cornerstone of Albert Einstein's theory of general
> relativity...")

Not a lie; fact.

> Of all the Einsteinians not one could think of a reason why Nature's
> assertion should be discussed.

No particular reason *to* discuss it. It's perfectly obvious.

> The rest of the world couldn't care
> less about any analogy between light and cannonballs.

There *is* no sensible analogy between light and cannonballs.


Mark L. Fergerson
From: Yousuf Khan on 12 Jul 2010 08:22
On 7/12/2010 2:55 PM, nuny(a)bid.nes wrote:
> On Jul 11, 10:18 pm, Pentcho Valev<pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Recently the journal Nature vindicated Newton's thesis and so
>> implicitly rejected Einstein's relativity:
>
> Complete nonsense.
>
>> http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100617/full/news.2010.303.html
>> NATURE: "Gravity is mercilessly impartial - on Earth, it accelerates
>> light and heavy objects alike with a tug of 9.8 metres per second
>> squared."
>
> Not "light" as in "electromagnetic radiation", "light" as in "not
> heavy". The article is about dropping collections of atoms in the BEC
> state. It does not involve the effect of gravitation on *massless*
> quanta of electromagnetic radiation.

Don't let a little thing like a lack of reading comprehension get in the
way of his victory dance. He finally got a respected scientific journal
to agree with his point of view, even if it was in agreement for one
out-of-context sentence, and that sentence was also completely
misinterpreted. :)

Yousuf Khan
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Chaos in the solar system
Next: The differences between a preferred frame and an inertial frame.