🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 19, 10:57 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Physics is dying:
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/nov/22/schools.g2
> "We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise
> known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis
> in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special
> relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published
> the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead
> of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a
> dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school.
> The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15
> years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next
> few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a
> lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state
> schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those
> students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home
> of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-
> class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and
> electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing
> extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so
> who cares if we disappear?"
>
> http://archives.lesechos.fr/archives/2004/LesEchos/19077-80-ECH.htm
> "Physicien au CEA, professeur et auteur, Etienne Klein s'inquiète des
> relations de plus en plus conflictuelles entre la science et la
> société. (...) « Je me demande si nous aurons encore des physiciens
> dans trente ou quarante ans », remarque ce touche-à-tout aux multiples
> centres d'intérêt : la constitution de la matière, le temps, les
> relations entre science et philosophie. (...) Etienne Klein n'est pas
> optimiste. Selon lui, il se pourrait bien que l'idée de progrès soit
> tout bonnement « en train de mourir sous nos yeux »."
>
> Scientists should try various rescue operations; one of them could
> consist in strict adherence to the following postulates:
>
> Postulate 1: (frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)
>
> Postulate 2: The wavelength of light is constant.
>
> Postulate 1 is a universally accepted textbook formula but Postulate 2
> needs some justification. Consider this:
>
> 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/ind...
> 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)."
>
> Clearly the decrease in wavelength as a function of the observer's
> speed is introduced for idelogical reasons and is physically absurd.
> "The observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently" can only mean
> "Wavecrests would now have a greater speed relative to the observer".
>
> The reason why the wavelength should vary in a gravitational field is
> also purely ideological:
>
> http://www.astronomynotes.com/relativity/s4.htm
> "Prediction: light escaping from a large mass should lose energy---the
> wavelength must increase since the speed of light is constant."
>
> Authors who claim that the wavelength varies in a gravitational field
> while the speed of light remains constant want to be greater
> Einsteinians than Einstein: in Einstein's works, the speed of light is
> always VARIABLE in a gravitational field:
>
> http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
> "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
> a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
> well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
> not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
> of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
> in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
> Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
> development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
> widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
> of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
> section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
> of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
> c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> speed of light c0 is measured."
>
> http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
> "In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
> can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
> of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
> be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
> and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
> of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
> particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
> represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
> of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
> through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
> we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
> vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
> light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
> and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
> which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
> formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
> Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
> gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
> we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
> coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
> equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
> potential term."
>
> http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
> "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/191...
> ). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by
> about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in
> the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
> will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
> variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
> result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
> relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
> can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
> the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
> approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
> 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
> shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in
> 1911."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Sorry Pentcho, but I do not feel that you are the man who defends the
physics as I believed. You and all others who try to critic Einstein's
SR and GR by speaking only about the light phenomena could be
considered that they are doing so intentionally in fact to obstruct
the real critics against this moronic theory. To me it feels as a big
hypocrisy in physics. No one can critic the Einstein relativity
without the critic of the Lorentz transformation and of the Principle
of the equivalence of the gravitational force and the inertial force.
These are the two principal mistakes in his theory of relativity. So I
do not believe that  physic is dying but is a shame for the scientists
all over the word, and especially for English scientists, because
Einstein negates Newton theory with his false theory. This is true,
because you can't mix the light phenomena with the phenomena of the
motion of material bodies. The material bodies have mass, but light
has not. That is shown by the mathematical formulas of the second
Newton law, and the law of universal attraction.