🚀 go-pugleaf

On Nov 16, 12:40 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 15 Nov, 19:48, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 15, 1:15 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/1113/2
> > > "The experiment provides a particularly useful new datum, says Alan
> > > Kostelecky, a physicist at Indiana University, Bloomington, who
> > > developed the theory that aims to incorporate all possible violations
> > > of special relativity. Known as the Standard-Model Extension, the
> > > theory contains 19 parameters, or "coefficients," that allow for
> > > wiggle room. "They have placed an improved bound on a coefficient that
> > > is particularly difficult to measure," Kostelecky says. Any theories
> > > that move beyond special relativity would have to agree with special
> > > relativity to within this very tight margin. So, to improve their
> > > credibility, the crackpots should start their manuscripts with,
> > > "Einstein was not quite right."
>
> > > I think Lee Smolin, John Stachel, string theorists and all other
> > > Beyond-Einsteinians or The-Other-Einsteinians should take notice of
> > > what Alan Kostelecky says.
>
> > > Pentcho Valev
>
> > I don't know why you would suggest that to them. None of the names
> > mentioned would say that SR is not quite right.
>
> http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm"Einstein's Legacy --
> Where are the "Einsteinians?", Lee Smolin: "Quantum theory was not the
> only theory that bothered Einstein. Few people have appreciated how
> dissatisfied he was with his own theories of relativity. Special
> relativity grew out of Einstein's insight that the laws of
> electromagnetism cannot depend on relative motion and that the speed
> of light therefore must be always the same, no matter how the source
> or the observer moves. Among the consequences of that theory are that
> energy and mass are equivalent (the now-legendary relationship E =
> mc2) and that time and distance are relative, not absolute. SPECIAL
> RELATIVITY WAS THE RESULT OF 10 YEARS OF INTELLECTUAL STRUGGLE, YET
> EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF
> PUBLISHING IT."
>
> Do you know why Smolin thinks EINSTEIN HAD CONVINCED HIMSELF IT WAS
> WRONG WITHIN TWO YEARS OF PUBLISHING IT? John Norton explains:
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/OntologyOUP_TimesNR.pdf"What Can
> We Learn about the Ontology of Space and Time from the Theory of
> Relativity?", John D. Norton: "In general relativity there is no
> comparable sense of the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy
> of the speed of light is a consequence of the perfect homogeneity of
> spacetime presumed in special relativity. There is a special velocity
> at each event; homogeneity forces it to be the same velocity
> everywhere. We lose that homogeneity in the transition to general
> relativity and with it we lose the constancy of the speed of light.
> Such was Einstein's conclusion at the earliest moments of his
> preparation for general relativity. ALREADY IN 1907, A MERE TWO YEARS
> AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY, HE HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE
> SPEED OF LIGHT IS VARIABLE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD."
>
> As for John Stachel, he IMPLICITLY admits special relativity is "not
> quite right" by claiming that it is compatible with Newton's emission
> theory of light:
>
> http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
> John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] compatible with
> an emission theory of radiation, since it implies that the velocity of
> light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
> requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
> absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
> radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
> circumstances."
>
> A sycophant of John Stachel's called Jean Eisenstaedt is even explicit
> about this:
>
> http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/publication/lna/detail/lna40/pgs/...
> 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

You illustrate my point exactly, Pachinko. You do not understand the
difference between extending a theory and recognizing that a theory is
just wrong. All of the authors you cite pointed out where Einstein
himself recognized the need to extend the *special* theory of
relativity to the *general* theory of relativity.

This is no different than recognzing the need to extend the *special*
classical force of gravity F=mg (for cases near the Earth's surface)
to the *general* classical force of gravity F=GMm/r^2.

Now, Newton himself recognized that F=mg worked *fine* for the special
case, which is why it is labeled the special case, but he also needed
something more *general* which is what produced F=GMm/r^2. Does this
make F=mg wrong for the special cases? No. Does the special case apply
in all circumstances? No.

In exactly the same way, SR works *fine* in the special cases, which
is why it is called *special* relativity. For cases where
gravitational forces are strong, however, the more *general* rule must
be applied. This does not say that SR is *wrong*, only that it applies
in *special* cases, which is precisely how it is used.

PD