🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 4, 10:08 am, S T R I C H <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 2:14 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >http://www.rightsidenews.com/200904304606/energy-and-environment/rava...
> > "Even the best of science "total stories" are theories still waiting
> > to be replaced or altered massively, even repudiated: like Newton's
> > theory of universal gravitation, and Darwin's theory of evolution, and
> > Einstein's special theory of relativity. Everyone's welcome to try to
> > kill them - by the strict rules, that is; not by politico-
> > journalistic, statistical-shake-and-bake gunplay....Scientists modify
> > existing theories and then destroy parts of them, without reducing the
> > whole."
>
> > Clearly not just "everyone" is welcome to try to kill special
> > relativity: those who do not know how to "modify existing theories and
> > then destroy parts of them, without reducing the whole", that is,
> > those who do not know how to get rid of Einstein's 1905 false light
> > postulate without abandoning time dilation, length contraction,
> > Minkowski spacetime and similar idiocies, are not welcome at all. For
> > the moment only Paul Davies, Sir Martin Rees, Stephen Hawking, Neil
> > Turok, Lee Smolin and Joao Magueijo are welcome to try to kill special
> > relativity because only they know how to do so "without reducing the
> > whole":
>
> >http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5538
> > Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
> > the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
> > stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
> > the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
> > maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
> > constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
> > Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"
>
> >http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
> > "A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
> > thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
> > relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
> > Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
> > laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
> > also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
> > rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
> > actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
> > Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
> > even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
> > Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
> > 186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
> > light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
> > Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
> > they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
> > than 30 leading cosmologists....What he, Hawking and others such as
> > Neil Turok, professor of maths and physics at Cambridge, are now
> > looking at is the idea that our universe is just one of an infinite
> > number of universes, with different laws of nature operating in each."
>
> >http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
> > 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."
>
> >http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Searching_for_the_Golden_Spike.pdf
> > "Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the
> > speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates
> > special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at
> > a constant speed for all observers..."
>
> >http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E7D8143FF932A05751...
> > "As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent
> > clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in
> > particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the
> > same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations
> > of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical
> > consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies
> > all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed
> > up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes
> > using the word "relative."......"Perhaps relativity is too restrictive
> > for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "We need to
> > drop a postulate, perhaps the constancy of the speed of light."
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> PV, it is all so simple.  Special Relativity (SR) is wrong.  General
> Relativity (GR) is based on SR.  If SR is wrong, it follows logically
> that GR is wrong.
>
> What is wrong with SR?  The constancy of the speed of light in ANY
> reference frame is wrong.

First of all, SR doesn't claim it for ANY frame, only for inertial
reference frames.
Secondly, prove that it's wrong. It's your claim, back it up.

>  It follows that time dilation and length
> contraction are wrong.
>
> How does one correct SR and GR?  It is all so simple.  Throw it away.
> The very foundations of SR/GR, frame-invariance of the speed of light
> and frame-variance of time and space, is wrong.  There is no
> correcting SR/GR without killing the whole.
>
> What is so difficult about killing SR/GR?  The difficulty is that all
> of 20th century physics, as exemplified by the Standard Model, rests
> on a relativistic foundation.  To kill SR/GR is to kill the Standard
> Model.  No physicist will admit that what they have been doing for
> over a century is wrong.  No physicist will admit that their primary
> theory/model of how the world works is wrong.  No physicist will even
> attempt to fix this from the inside.  They will just wait for it to
> crumble.  Theirs is a fight to the death.
>
> Is there hope?  Of course there is.  That great theory begun by
> Planck, and developed by Schrodinger and Heisenberg, Quantum Mechanics
> (QM) is the future of physics.  QM holds that time is constant.  QM
> has been corroborated by repeatable experiments.  We just need to
> extricate QM back from the Standard Model, where QM was mangled in the
> form of Quantum Field Theory... and for what purpose, to make it a
> relativistic theory :-)
>
> The great physicist, Feynman, could not correct the errors of QFT.
> Being the best physicist of his time, he knew by default that all his
> contemporaries could not fix that same error.  Thus he wrote the book
> QED for the non-physicist, hoping that some non-physicist genius out
> there may be able to lend a hand.
>
> Feynman did not realize the solution was staring him in the face.
> Ditch SR/GR, and you fix physics.