🚀 go-pugleaf

On Feb 2, 12:13 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
> Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
> the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
> stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
> the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
> maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
> constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
> Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"
>
> http://smashingtelly.com/2009/01/16/einsteins-biggest-blunder/
> "The theory of Relativity might be more usefully called the theory of
> the constancy of the speed of light. So what if the speed of light
> wasn’t constant?"
>
> http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E7D8143FF932A05751C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all
> "As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent
> clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in
> particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the
> same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations
> of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical
> consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies
> all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed
> up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes
> using the word ''relative.''......''Perhaps relativity is too
> restrictive for what we need in quantum gravity,'' Dr. Magueijo said.
> ''We need to drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of
> light.''
>
> "http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
> "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
> thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
> relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
> Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
> laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
> also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
> rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
> actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
> Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
> even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
> Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
> 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
> light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
> Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
> they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
> than 30 leading cosmologists."
>
> Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 298-299:
> "La racine du mal etait clairement la relativite restreinte. Tous ces
> paradoxes resultaient d'effets bien connus comme la contraction des
> longueurs, la dilatation du temps, ou E=mc^2, tous des predictions
> directes de la relativite restreinte. (...) La consequence en etait
> inevitable: pour edifier une theorie coherente de la gravite
> quantique, quelle qu'elle soit, nous [Joao Magueijo et Lee Smolin]
> devions commencer par abandonner la relativite restreinte. (...) Mais,
> comme nous l'avons vu, celle-ci repose sur deux principes
> independants. Le premier est la relativite du mouvement, le second la
> constance de la vitesse de la lumiere. Une des solutions possibles a
> notre probleme pouvait etre d'abandonner la relativite du mouvement.
> (...) C'est une possibilite bien sur, mais nous avons choisi
> l'alternative evidente: preserver la relativite du mouvement, mais
> admettre qu'a de tres hautes energies, la vitesse de la lumiere ne
> soit plus constante."
>
> Needless to say, Joao Magueijo, Lee Smolin, Paul Davies, Martin Rees,
> Stephen Hawking etc. did not drop Einstein's 1905 false light
> postulate in the end, at least not officially. But they extracted
> maximum career and money from this particular heresy and then left the
> sinking ship. The world will never again be interested in whether or
> not the postulate is false. Accordingly, people are free to sing or
> not to sing "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity"
> and "Divine Einstein":
>
> "YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
>
> "DIVINE EINSTEIN"
> (No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or B-o-o-ohr!)
> http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm

The revolution WILL take place after all:

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/wht/2009/02/nine_leading_researchers_join.html
"Nine leading researchers join Stephen Hawking as Distinguished
Research Chairs at Perimeter Institute in Ontario, Canada. WATERLOO,
Ontario, Canada, February 9, 2009 - Dr. Neil Turok, Director of
Canada's Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics (PI), is pleased
to announce the appointment of nine more outstanding international
scientists to the positions of PI Distinguished Research Chairs. The
new Chairs include Yakir Aharonov of Chapman University, Nima Arkani-
Hamed of the Institute for Advanced Study, Neta Bahcall of Princeton
University, Juan Ignacio Cirac of the Max Planck Institute, Gia Dvali
of CERN and NYU, Subir Sachdev of Harvard University, Ashoke Sen of
the Harish-Chandra Research Institute, Leonard Susskind of Stanford
University and Xiao-Gang Wen of MIT. They will join Perimeter
Institute's first Distinguished Research Chair, Prof. Stephen Hawking,
in spending extended research visits at PI each year. The appointments
are for three years. As PI grows, it plans to reach a steady state of
40 Distinguished Research Chairs."

But first the nine oustanding international scientists will have to
explain to Stephen Hawking that the Michelson-Morley experiment
confirmed the fact that the speed of light does depend on the speed of
the light source and therefore Stephen Hawking should not use this
experiment in his fight against Laplace and Michell:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

Then Leonard Susskind will have to explain to Stephen Hawking what
cosmology will look like when Einsteinians will officially have
abandoned Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://www.sciscoop.com/story/2008/10/30/41323/484
"Does the apparently constant speed of light change over the vast
stretches of the universe? Would our understanding of black holes,
ancient supernovae, dark matter, dark energy, the origins of the
universe and its ultimate fate be different if the speed of light were
not constant?.....Couldn't it be that the supposed vacuum of space is
acting as an interstellar medium to lower the speed of light like some
cosmic swimming pool? If so, wouldn't a stick plunged into the pool
appear bent as the light is refracted and won't that affect all our
observations about the universe. I asked theoretical physicist Leonard
Susskind, author of The Black Hole War, recently reviewed in Science
Books to explain this apparent anomaly....."You are entirely right,"
he told me, "there are all sorts of effects on the propagation of
light that astronomers and astrophysicists must account for. The point
of course is that they (not me) do take these effects into account and
correct for them." "In a way this work is very heroic but unheralded,"
adds Susskind, "An immense amount of extremely brilliant analysis has
gone into the detailed corrections that are needed to eliminate these
'spurious' effects so that people like me can just say 'light travels
with the speed of light.' So, there you have it. My concern about
cosmic swimming pools and bent sticks does indeed apply, but
physicists have taken the deviations into account so that other
physicists, such as Susskind, who once proved Stephen Hawking wrong,
can battle their way to a better understanding of the universe."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com