🚀 go-pugleaf

On Nov 6, 9:55 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Cosmological observations should not be used as evidence for or
> against fundamental theories (Einstein's relativity) for the simple
> reason that they are contaminated with lots of explicit or implicit
> auxiliary hypotheses, hypotheses that do not belong to the fundamental
> theory. In the case discussed below the observation that high-energy
> photons arrive later than low-energy ones is accompanied by the
> following hypothesis:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18068-universes-quantum-speed-b...
> "If space-time is grainy, higher-energy photons would move more slowly
> than their lower-energy counterparts. That's because higher-energy
> photons have smaller wavelengths, which makes them more sensitive to
> tiny fluctuations in space-time."
>
> A much more reasonable hypothesis as to why high-energy photons travel
> at a lower speed than low-energy ones could be advanced and yet, in my
> view, Einstein's 1905 light postulate could be at most at stake but by
> no means rejected if this particular observation were the only
> evidence.
>
> There are two experiments, those of Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka,
> where all auxiliary hypotheses have become part of the fundamental
> theory itself. This has created some "classical" internal ambiguity
> but, on the other hand, arbitrary shifts in interpretation caused by
> new ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses are precluded. So the fate of
> Einstein's theory can unequivocally be decided by answering the
> following questions:
>
> The Michelson-Morley experiment is consistent with:
>
> (A) Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)
>
> (B) the antithesis of Einstein's 1905 light postulate, the equation
> c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, where v is the
> speed of the light source (relative to the observer)
>
> (C) both Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and its antithesis,
> the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, where
> v is the speed of the light source (relative to the observer)
>
> The Pound-Rebka experiment is consistent with:
>
> (D) the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a
> gravitational field
>
> (E) the assumption that the speed of light varies with the
> gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/
> c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light and advanced by
> Einstein in 1911
>
> (F) the assumption that the speed of light varies with the
> gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2V/
> c^2) advanced by Einstein in 1915
>
> Careful analysis would show that (B) and (E) form the only reasonable
> couple.
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> In Einsteiniana:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-mag...
> "In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in
> the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black
> hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light
> years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the
> telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of
> the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time
> lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space?
> That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central
> tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all
> electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic
> speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be
> absolutely irrelevant."
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/11/04/gamma-rays-einstein.html
> "At stake was nothing less than a foundation of modern physics --
> Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits that all electromagnetic
> radiation travels at the same speed, whether low-energy radio waves,
> high-energy X-rays or gamma rays, or any wavelength in between. (...)
> After a journey of more than 7 billion light-years, however, the gamma
> ray photons arrived nine-tenths of a second apart on May 9, 2009 --
> not enough of a lag to account for the theorized quantum effects.
> "Einstein, at this point, wins again," Michelson said."
>
> http://live.psu.edu/story/42610
> "Of the many gamma-ray photons detected by Fermi from the 2.1-second
> burst, two had energies differing by a million times. Yet after
> traveling some seven billion years, the pair of photons arrived just
> nine-tenths of a second apart. "This measurement eliminates any
> approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy-
> dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. The long-
> distance experiment showed that "To one part in 100 million billion,
> these two photons traveled at the same speed. "EINSTEIN STILL RULES,"
> Michelson said."
>
> In Big Brother's world:
>
> http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
> George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two
> made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that
> they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
> position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
> very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
> philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
> terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
> but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
> and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
> past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
> only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
>
> Breathtaking news in Big Brother's world: In 2005, researchers at the
> MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands added two
> and two and did not get five, but then Stanford University's Peter
> Michelson, the lead scientist on the Fermi Large Area Telescope, added
> two and two again and did not get five either. "BIG BROTHER STILL
> RULES,"Michelson said.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Also his work on the comsology of a finite unbounded and closed
universe was significant.
Doubting Einstein is not the way to go about making new science.
Finding the problems in established science is the right way.

Mitch Raemsch