Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Einstein's Relativity is False


Pentcho Valev

Recommended Posts

In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the frequency shift as light travels between the top and the bottom of a tower. Their result confirmed Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle) and refuted Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light (the c principle). In Einstein's zombie world this meant that Einstein's principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light (the c principle) was confirmed whereas Newton's principle of VARIABILITY of speed of light (the c+v principle) was refuted. Hence the hymn of Einstein's cult:

The frequency shift he gave in defiance

was neatly confirmed under the tower.

Oh Einstein, Oh Albert, Oh Giant of Science,

Oh Creature Divine with an infinite power.

Of course both zombies and hypnotists know the formula F=V/L, where F is the frequency, V is the speed and L is the wavelength. This is the most horrible formula in the world: on seeing it, both zombies and hypnotists look for sand, bury their heads, expose other extremities and remain so until the danger is over. Why the horror? Pound and Rebka found that the receiver on the ground will receive the light with frequency F=(1+gh/c^2)Fo where Fo is the original frequency. The application of the horrible formula F=V/L unequivocally leads to the result

V = c + v

where V is the speed of light as measured by the receiver and v>0 is the speed of the receiver (or the light source) in an equivalent setup where the tower is replaced by an accelerated rocket. So after taking their heads out of the sand both zombies and hypnotists perform a special voodoo ritual designed to disconnect the two formulas, F=(1+gh/c^2)Fo and F=V/L, in the mind of any possible human being. So far the ritual has proved extremely efficient.

Yet from time to time a human being combines the two formulas and then a contradiction between zombies and hypnotists becomes evident. Hypnotists know that the truth of Newton's c+v principle and the falsehood of Einstein's c principle are the only reasonable conclusions:

Tom Roberts wrote in sci.physics.relativity:

> Pentcho Valev wrote:

> > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?

> Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can

> also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the

> standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated

> observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in

> Minkowski spacetime).

> Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

Zombies know nothing, look desperately at the two formulas and postulate in the end: If the frequency changes, then the wavelength changes accordingly but the speed of light remains constant. The speed of light is constant. Constant is the speed of light. The speed of light does not vary. Velocity may vary (Divine Albert said so in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity") but the speed never etc.

However hypnotists are not happy. They know how silly this "If the frequency changes, then the wavelength changes accordingly" is.

Pentcho Valev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Pentcho Valev

    32

  • Waspie_Dwarf

    11

  • ivytheplant

    8

  • Fluffybunny

    4

Hypnotists in the zombie world have found a very successful way of deriving the results they need: they simply use what logicians call the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You just take some credible implication antecedent -> consequent, e.g.

x=0 -> x(x-5)=0

Then in a zombie world the reverse implication

x(x-5)=0 -> x=0

proves just as credible as the original one. The long series of fallacies of affirming the consequent started in 1850 when Clausius, the founder of Postscientism, derived:

Heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot in the absence of additional changes in the surroundings -> Heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot by using reversible heat engines.

Then the appetite of Clausius increased dramatically and he continued:

Entropy is a state function for an ideal gas -> Entropy is a state function for any system.

Closed integral of dQ/T is smaller than or equal to zero for cycles not involving heating (cooling) at constant volume -> Closed integral of dQ/T is smaller than or equal to zero for any cycle.

The list can be continued - practically all essential results of thermodynamics have been obtained by using the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Albert the Juggler was particularly impressed by the skill of thermodynamicists. He said:

"Therefore classical thermodynamics has made a deep impression on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, within the areas of the applicability of its basic concepts, will never be overthrown."

So the fallacy of affirming the consequent became Einstein's favorite method. Just an example (again, there is a fallacy of affirming the consequent at the origin of all essential results obtained by Einstein):

In Appendix 1 in his "Relativity" Einstein derives:

If x-ct=0, then x'-ct'=0, and vice versa -> (x'-ct') = lambda(x-ct).

Of course, this fallacy is closely related to the the phrase that Einstein's zombies should repeat 20 times in the morning and 30 times in the evening:

"Divine Albert has deduced his very complex theory from two very simple postulates, the postulate of relativity and the postulate of constancy of the speed of light."

A century of repetition has established Einstein's divinity forever: only a god (at least a semi-god) can extract a lot of information (a whole theory) from something containing very little information (two very simple postulates).

Einstein's divinity established forever, the hypnotists in Einstein's cult can become more careless and even mention additional postulates from time to time:

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf p.14:

3. We have assumed in eq. (10.12) that Dx and Dt are linear functions of Dx' and Dt'.

4. And we have also assumed that A, B, C, and D are constant.

Clearly, Einstein's theory CANNOT be deduced from the two very simple postulates, despite Einstein's divinity. However, if the plagiarist had introduced FOUR OFFICIAL postulates in 1905, as logic required, his plagiarism would have been even more obvious.

Pentcho Valev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.physorg.com/news8037.html :

Professor Geim, said: "To understand implications of the relativity theory, researchers often have to go considerable lengths, but our work shows that it is possible to set up direct experiments to test relativistic ideas. In theory, this will speed up possible discoveries and probably save billions of pounds now that tests can be set up using Graphene and relatively inexpensive laboratory equipment."

Pentcho Valev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is generally expected that when a person provides a link, that they will also add the reason why they have added the link to encourage folks to visit it.

Just adding the link and expecting a response doesn't work well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have merged 5 seperate 1 post topics into a single thread as I feel this will make it easier for readers to follow Pentcho Valev's line of thought.

Waspie_Dwarf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This unprecedented event will be broadcast live on the Internet from a webcast studio in the CERN Globe of Science and Innovation. Similar locations around the world are connected via Tandberg videoconference: the Telecom Future Centre (Venice), Imperial College London, the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Chicago), the Exploratorium (San Francisco) hosting scientists from the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, the Bloomfield Science Museum (Jerusalem) and the National Science Education Centre (Taipei).

From the seven main platforms, internauts will be taken on a world tour to other physics laboratories and science museums visiting virtually all the time zones of the planet, from Europe to America, from Asia to Tasmania and as far south as Antarctica.

The programme includes subjects such as relativity, gravitational waves, mass and gravity, antimatter and neutrinos, along with the mysteries remaining in Einstein's physics, and the technologies derived from it. A global audience will be able to discuss the impact of Einstein's discoveries and look beyond them with top-level physicists such as Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies, and with physics Nobel laureates David Gross, Murray Gell-Mann and Gerard 't Hooft, connected from the 2005 Solvay physics Conference in Brussels (17:10 CET).

Einstein was also a refugee, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) will discuss the positive contribution refugees can make to their society of adoption.

Peter Kirstein from University College London, who was instrumental in the Internet.s early evolution, will be joined by fellow Internet pioneer Bob Kahn, and Robert Cailliau who played a key role at the birth of the Web, to explore the role that basic science plays in the evolution of information technology.

Nobel laureate Leon Lederman will host a show live from Fermilab, featuring interviews with young physicists, fun physics demonstrations and live music (21:00 CET).

Other highlights include the award ceremony of the Pirelli Relativity Challenge from the Telecom Future Centre in Venice (15:30 CET), and an online quiz for 15 to 19 year-olds. Based on three top mysteries stemming from Einstein's theories, this competition will offer Apple iBook and Apple iPod prizes to the winners.

Major technology providers are supporting CERN in this unprecedented event. Tandberg, a global leader in video communication will be responsible for the connection of the seven locations by videoconference. A multipoint-videoconferencing system will be in use, which means that each of the seven participants will always be able to see the six other partners on screen. Telecom Italia is providing global webcast streaming, the INFN (Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics) Multimedia Service is providing webcast encoding. Cisco Systems, a leader in networking for the Internet, has joined the World Year of Physics International Steering Committee, the European Physical Society and the European Science Centre Network, ESCITE, in supporting the science laboratories with their respective expertise and in assembling a compelling programme.

Edited by ZV00
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The journal NATURE:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050117/full/433218a.html :

"Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science."

In less euphemistic words: Einstein introduced the principle of maximum absurdity in science. His false second postulate (the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source) produced idiocies like "I measure your clock to be slower than mine and you measure mine to be slower than yours" which were able to destroy the rationality of generations of scientists. Yet Einstein knew that was not enough. So he superimposed other idiocies, e.g. "The observer at rest measures the clock of the traveller to be slow and the traveller measures the clock of the observer at rest to be FAST":

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :

"If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow."

Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 12: "As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest."

In Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" Einstein applies the principle of maximum absurdity again:

Einstein: "If the observer [on the rotating disc] applies the standard measuring-rod....tangentially to the edge of the disc, then, as judged from the Galileian [non-rotating] system, the length of this rod will be less than 1, since, according to Section 12, moving bodies suffer a shortening in the direction of the motion."

This implies that, as judged from the Galileian system, the rotating periphery of the disc is SHORTER than a non-rotating periphery. Length contraction is an idiocy of course but still Einstein finds it suitable to superimpose another idiocy: as judged from the Galileian system, the rotating periphery is LONGER than a non-rotating periphery. In other words, Einstein superimposes length DILATION on the traditional idiotic length contraction.

The principle of maximum absurdity of Einstein is one of the greatest discoveries ever made in psychology.

Pentcho Valev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've now mergered another 3 attempts at starting a new topic into 1 thread. Pentcho I have PMed you on this subject before. As your posts are generally on the same thing, i.e. anti-Einstein please do not start multiple topics, reply to an existing topic.

Thank you,

Waspie_Dwarf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Relativity hypnotists wish to know why Einstein was silent about momentum and mass of the photon:

http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-59/iss-6/p11a.html

Other hypnotists have provided the answer:

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."

In other words, the speed of light can be 300000km/s in Position 1, 300001km/s in Position 2, 300002km/s in Position 3 etc. An even more informed hypnotist, Tom Roberts, explains further in sci.physics.relativity:

> Sam Wormley wrote:

> > Valev confuses *velocity* of light with *speed* of light!

> AFAIK Einstein basically thought in German, which does not have

> different words for "speed" and "velocity" ("die Geschwindigkeit" is

> used for both). Certainly his "velocity of propagation" could be phrased

> as "speed of propagation" without changing the underlying physics.

> Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

> Pentcho Valev wrote:

> > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?

> Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can

> also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the

> standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated

> observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in

> Minkowski spacetime).

> Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

Note that the relevant problem is WHETHER THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD, not whether the photon is massless. The variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field implies (through the application of the equivalence principle) that the speed of light in the absence of a gravitational field is c+v, where c is the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. This means that VARIABILITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD IS FATAL FOR EINSTEIN'S THEORY AND MODERN PHYSICS IN GENERAL:

Albert Einstein:

"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Pentcho Valev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The subject of relativity is not one of my better interests, but isn't this dealt with by the fact that the frequencies would blueshift going into the potential well, and redshift coming out?

And, if the well was based upon the stress brought on by a spherical shape, of say a stellar mass (although Altair, for example is prolate), but based upon a "model" potential well of an "average" star, would not the blueshift-minus-redshift net out as zero?

And, would this not also apply to elliptical gravitational wells, such as lensing clusters present? Even massive clusters that (you might disagree!) are mostly dark matter? You probably discount the LCDM idea, as well, if I get your drift. No offence intended, but I can not figure your angle of attack. We all hope for augmentations to the Standard Model. I just don't have the temerity to offer up where it's wrong.

I leave that for others!

Take care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another Pentcho Valev anti-Einstein thread.

Pentcho, I have PMed you twice about this now, please do not keep starting new threads on essentially the same thing, please add to the threads you already have running.

Yet again I am going to merge threads.

Waspie_Dwarf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, Mr. Valev's logic seems to boil down to "I disagree with this man, therefore this man is an evil idiot."

Einstein was always quick to invite others to examine, criticize, and refute his theories. He was not a monolithic tyrant of the intellectual community. Why insult him and those who espouse his theories? All theories of science are eventually fine-tuned ("disproven" is the term used by detractors). Newton's laws have been altered. Remember the law of conservation of energy? And the law of conservation of mass? Both wrong. But together, they lead to a right answer. Or, at least, they lead to the model that we use now.

The current model of science is never perfect. We cannot see the true reality that produces the phenoma of the experienced world, therefore we must constantly observe and test to make our model more and more accurate.

Now, Mr. Valev says that the speed of light is variable. So, what is the velocity of a quantum as it leaves its source? Does it depend on the energy level change of the electron shell that produced it? If the speed of light is variable, demonstrate a situation in which it is slowed to a point where a macroatomic object traveling in the same vector exceeds the speed of the quanta. At that speed, looking backwards from the object would show an immense black spot, in which all light has red-shifted out of existence.

I'm not saying that Einstein's theories must remain inviolate. What I'm saying is that you're both wrong, but to different degrees.

GT

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet another Pentcho Valev anti-Einstein thread.

Pentcho, I have PMed you twice about this now, please do not keep starting new threads on essentially the same thing, please add to the threads you already have running.

Yet again I am going to merge threads.

Waspie_Dwarf

On top of that, please read the warning that I am sending to you and pay attention to the requests being made of you in the future; he is not asking for much, just a little help to avoid confusion,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geez, Einstein's theory of relativity has been proven to be faulty a long time ago get over it.

and what is with the automaton-ish attitutude, say something! no i dont want to see the discussion on another site just say something! I mean, posting bits of information wont back up ur argument if you dont have a voice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting reading Ivy.

Personally I disagree with Mr. Valev on, well just about everything he has posted. The problem is that he does not appear to want to engage in debate. He just appears, posts and disappears again.

I collect his posting into a single thread in the hope that it may encourage intelligent debate on the issues Mr. Valev raises, however I suspect that if such debate is to occur it will be without the participation of Mr. Valev himself.

In your link there is a section titled:

Is it possible to convince Mr Valev with rational arguments?

I agree entirely with point 1 (although I disagree with Mr. Valev's views), namely:

Pentcho proposes a paradox that appears to undermine two centuries of thermodynamics. Nothing necessarily wrong with that — received opinion has been wrong about things for a lot more than two centuries before, and will doubtless be so again.

The same goes for his views on Einstein. Mr. Valev has a right to his views and unless his strange descriptions of those that believe in Einstein (hypnotists for some reason) degenerate into something more insulting, or he breaks the forum rules (which, incidental, Mr. Valev includes "starting multiple identical topics" and respecting the moderators decisions) I don't believe his views should be banned or censored.

Edited by Waspie_Dwarf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible to have the Fischer Price version of what this guy is saying ?

I mean to be honest all that number crunching just looks like squiggly lines to me :blink:

Whats the bottom line on Eintein being wrong ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whats the bottom line on Eintein being wrong ?

I think the current bottom line would be something like this:

No good scientist would claim Einstein is definitely right... that is poor science, however the vast majority of physists would sat that the evidence is mostly consistant with Einstein being right. There are other theories but there is not much evidence to back them up at the moment.

On the other hand Mr. Valev claims Einstein is wrong.

Newton's model of gravity stood for centuries before Einstein improved on it. The same may happen to Einstein one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got scared when he kept talking about zombies... :(

Einstein being wrong (if he is wrong) is not something so impressive or revolutionary. He has been proven wrong with experimentation on a number of subjects, especially in the realm of quantum physics. The uncertinty principle, for instance was something that Einstein tried to fight his whole life, publishing multiple papers that were all disproven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got scared when he kept talking about zombies... :(

Einstein was a zombie? :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Einstein was a zombie? :o

I think it is the hypnotist followeres of Einstein that are the zombies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.