🚀 go-pugleaf

On Jan 12, 10:15 am, Don Stockbauer <donstockba...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 12, 1:14 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/030526/26beyond.htm
> > "Even if Joao Magueijo had not advocated castrating an editor at a
> > prestigious science journal, and even if he hadn't suggested that
> > rival physicists, ostensibly brilliant like Magueijo, were just
> > posers--in short, even if Magueijo were a less colorful rebel, his
> > ideas would have attracted attention. After all, he is taking on
> > Einstein, and ever since we placed Einstein on a pedestal, we have
> > been titillated by the idea of knocking him off. Magazine editors know
> > that putting the antic-haired genius on the cover, perhaps over the
> > words Faster Than the Speed of Light --the somewhat misleading title
> > of Magueijo's recent book--all but guarantees sales. And yet Magueijo,
> > a physicist at Imperial College, London, is for real, and he is not
> > alone. As we near the end of our first century in a relative universe,
> > challenges to Einstein's theory are in the air. They are respectful
> > challenges; even Magueijo isn't proposing to throw relativity out the
> > window, any more than Einstein junked Newton. "We get E-mail and
> > letters all the time from amateurs who think they have found a mistake
> > in Einstein's theory," says Lee Smolin, a physicist at the Perimeter
> > Institute in Waterloo, Ontario. "That's not what is going on here." If
> > relativity is wrong, it is wrong by such tiny amounts or in such
> > particular circumstances that you have to go to great lengths to find
> > the error......They may have to bend his best-known principle: the one
> > that says the speed of light is an absolute, always and everywhere the
> > same, and faster than anything else.....Second, he said that c, the
> > speed of light, will appear exactly the same to every observer, in
> > every frame of reference. A century later, that second postulate still
> > defies common sense. It says that if you're driving down the highway
> > at a quarter the speed of light, you'll still see the photons from
> > your headlights racing ahead of you at light speed--not three-quarters
> > light speed. If I'm coming from the opposite direction at half light
> > speed, I'll still see your photons approaching at c--not 1.5 times
> > c......It might be a relief to learn that physicists were talking
> > about chucking this deeply strange theory. But just as Einstein made
> > only minute corrections to Newton in everyday life--to really feel the
> > effects of special relativity, you have to move at a large fraction of
> > light speed--the proposed changes to relativity would have only
> > subtle, hard-to-detect effects. Yet the stakes are big......Physicists
> > are taking many paths to this "quantum gravity" grail, but in all of
> > them spacetime itself, instead of being continuous, is made of quantum
> > bits.....That minimum length comes at a cost, however: The speed of
> > light would no longer be a constant."
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> Boy, all this is sure complicated.

Smolin makes it complicated - he needs camouflage because he never
forgets Divine Albert's words:

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."

Sillier Einsteinians often forget Divine Albert's words and make
discoveries that, if rationality in Einstein zombie world were not
completely destroyed, would be fatal:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "D'autre part, nous savons aujourd'hui que
l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumiere est une consequence de la
nullite de la masse du photon. Mais, empiriquement, cette masse, aussi
faible soit son actuelle borne superieure experimentale, ne peut et ne
pourra jamais etre consideree avec certitude comme rigoureusement
nulle. Il se pourrait meme que de futures mesures mettent en evidence
une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumiere alors n'irait
plus a la "vitesse de la lumiere", ou, plus precisement, la vitesse de
la lumiere, desormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus a la vitesse
limite invariante. Les procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le
"second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-
meme en serait-elle invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais,
pour s'en assurer, il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus
solides, et d'ailleurs plus economiques. En verite, le "premier
postulat" suffit, a la condition de l'exploiter a fond."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relalivity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity.

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."

Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com