🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 17, 7:19 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The following text is written by a high-ranking Einsteinian, Steve
> Carlip. Try to find deliberate absurdity, inconsistency, camouflage
> etc. that make it ideological rather than scientific:
>
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
> Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
> 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
> (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
> is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
> interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
> in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
> answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is CONSTANT BY
> DEFINITION!....Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
> relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
> he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
> 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
> ". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
> constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
> the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
> [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
> light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
> varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
> quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
> clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
> special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
> IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
> INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
> relativity."

More examples of deliberate confusion introduced by Einsteiniana's
ideologues. Richard Conn Henry seems to hate Einstein's 1905 false
light postulate (perhaps he finds it too dangerous) and sees
Minkowski's spacetime as salvation:

http://www.spacetimecenter.org/conferences/2008/Henry.pdf
Teaching Special Relativity: Minkowski trumps Einstein
Richard Conn Henry
Henry A. Rowland Department of Physics and Astronomy
The Johns Hopkins University
"Students find physics difficultI am thinking of first-year
undergraduate university physics majors. I found it difficult myself,
and it took me almost 40 years of teaching physics to fully understand
the reasons for the perceived "difficulty." Why do students who find
mathematics easy to understand, find physics difficult to
understand?....How grotesquely badly we teach special relativity
encapsulates the practical problem of teaching physics to the freshman
physics major. I have never found a single freshman physics textbook
that teaches Minkowski spacetime; I have never found a single text on
General Relativity that mentions "Einstein's two
postulates.".....There is no doubt that, historically, Albert
Einstein, in 1905, did introduce two postulates (and also, that it is
he who discovered special relativity). But the second of these
postulates (the one concerning the constancy of c, just in case Reese
has confused you!) did not survive the year. In September of 1905
Einstein published a development from relativitythe discovery of the
implication that E = mc2 , and in this new paper he mentions a single
postulate only. But the paper contains a sweet footnote: "The
principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course
contained in Maxwell's equations." How I love that "of course!"
Einstein was human!......Antique postulates that are not of anything
but historical interest to genuine physicists are presented to
students as "Special Relativity.".....I feel that the time has come to
relegate the "two postulates" to the dustbin of history, and to teach
special relativity to undergraduates (or indeed, to middle school
students) the Minkowski way."

In contrast, Andreas Albrecht considers "razing Minkowski's arena" and
getting "any laws of physics you want" (e.g. you want a law of physics
that says the speed of light is variable, but when it comes to
questioning Divine Albert's Divine Theory, you want a law of physics
that says the speed of light is constant):

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/35992/title/It%E2%80%99s_Likely_That_Times_Are_Changing
"I showed that you could make different choices of what you mean by
time and get any laws of physics you want," he says. Freedom to choose
"time" therefore implies that the laws of physics aren’t indelibly
inscribed with Sharpies on indestructible stone tablets, but are more
like multiple drafts of legislative bills with details still at the
whim of editors wielding word processors. Some of those laws might not
even include any provision for space, leaving time partnerless....To
Albrecht, the dark energy mystery suggests that its time for physics
to drop old prejudices about how natures laws ought to be and search
instead for how they really are. And that might mean razing
Minkowski's arena and rebuilding it from a new design. It seems to me
like its a time in the development of physics, says Albrecht, where
its time to look at how we think about space and time very
differently."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com