🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 17, 8:05 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Stephen Hawking, an Albert Einstein of our generation: Newton's theory
> wrongly assumes that the speed of light is variable in a gravitational
> field:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
> Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
> "Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
> it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
> one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
> cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
> consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of
> gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
> upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
> eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
> at a constant speed...)"
>
> Lee Smolin, another Albert Einstein of our generation: Newton's theory
> wrongly assumes that the speed of light is constant in a gravitational
> field:
>
> http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=5f32739a-624d-4ec8-9ecc-4d44d3d16fe9
> Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
> lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
> it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."
>
> The original Albert Einstein (Divine Albert): Newton's theory
> correctly assumes that the speed of light is variable in a
> gravitational field but gives the wrong equation. Divine Albert adopts
> and even uses the wrong equation for some time but then gloriously
> rejects it and discovers The True Equation:
>
> http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
> "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from: http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf).
> It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about
> four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the
> Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
> will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
> variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
> result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
> relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
> can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
> the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
> approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
> 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
> shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."
>
> The scientific community agrees with any Einstein and fiercely sings
> "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" and "Divine
> Einstein":
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
>
> http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divineEinstein.pdf
>
> http://www.everythingimportant.org/Einstein_worship/

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

If Stephen Hawking, Lee Smolin and Albert Einstein were Big Brother's
scientists, they would criticize old science in the following way:

Stephen Hawking: Old science wrongly assumes that 2+2=4; in fact 2+2=0

Lee Smolin: Old science wrongly assumes that 2+2=0; in fact 2+2=5

Albert Einstein: Old science wrongly assumes that 2+2=4; in fact 2+2=5

The scientific community would again agree with all three of Big
Brother's scientists, only Prolls would be allowed to disagree but
they wouldn't because in Big Brother's world there is enough "cheap
pornography to keep the Prolls happy".

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com