🚀 go-pugleaf

On 19 Nov, 15:34, "Juan R." <juanrgonzal...@canonicalscience.com>
wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> In recent years, we are more convinced that both special and general
> relativity need deep reconsideration.
>
> The discussion of flaws and limitations of special and general
> theories of relativity is not now limited to obscure journals [#] but
> openly addressed in top scientific journals. See, for instance,
> special section on Science [1]. It is addressed to general readers.
> The first news is titled "Special Relativity Reconsidered", which can
> give you an idea I have in mind.
>
> I am just curious on what changes do you wait in basis to your own
> experience, ideas, and reading of up-to-date scientific literature. I
> also am curious on what changes would be impossible according to you.
> For instance, particle and string theorists consider Lorentz symmetry
> (point 4 on the list below) a needed ingredient of _any_ fundamental
> theory of physics. Others as L. Smolin and J. Magueijo disagree [2].
>
> Next, I include a list of topics I consider each one would be truly
> revolution on itself [##]. Expert readers would recognize some of the
> topics are included in certain research programs as string theory.
> Several topics are covered on [1].
>
> What changes for special and general relativity?:
>
> 1) Spacetime is not 4D.
>
> 2) Spacetime is not a continuum.
>
> 3) Spacetime is not fundamental just a derived framework.
>
> 4) Lorentz symmetry is an approximation.
>
> 5) Fundamental interactions are not delayed by c. Past light cone
> causality is an approximation.
>
> 6) Gravity is a force like electrodynamics. Thus, geometric General
> Relativity arises like an approximation.
>
> 7) There is not dark matter.
>
> 8) There is not dark energy.
>
> 9) Irreversibility is real. Thus Minkowskian view is just approximated
> one.
>
> 10) The laws of nature are not deterministic.
>
> 11) Time is absolute.
>
> 12) There exist no fundamental fields on Nature.
>
> 13) General Relativity does not apply at 10^19 GeV. There is not
> astrophysical singularities or Big Bang.
>
> 14) E^2 =/= {mc^2}^2 + {pc}^2
>
> 15) Photons are not fundamental particles but quasiparticles like
> optical phonons.
>
> 16) Universe is chiral.
>
> 17) Astrophysical black hole candidates are 'preon-strings' stars.
>
> 18) Equivalence principle may arise from some other more fundamental
> principle.
>
> 19) Inflactionary cosmology will be substituted by some new model.
>
> 20) Our current bloc-view Universe may be substituted by some
> multiverse new view.
>
> 21) Your own point. Please enter it with numbering in accord to
> previous messages.

Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (c'=c) should be replaced with
the true equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory, where v is
the relative speed of the light source and the observer. However:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!"
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."

Pentcho Valev

>
> ========
> I followhttp://canonicalscience.com/guidelines.txt
>
> [#]
> I know that several communities have denunciated academic persecution
> and bad practices (censuring, no-promotion of careers, etc.) from
> relativistic community. They joined in special interest groups and
> launched alternative journals and conferences series.
>
> I am not analyzing the truth or falsity behind certain claims; I
> simply noticing!
>
> [##]
> I am not neither supporting nor disproving all of them, just listing I
> think are the more popular!
>
> [1] Science 2005, 307, 866-890.
>
> [2] Phys. Rev. D 2003, 67, 044017.