🚀 go-pugleaf

<rvallshg@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4fd907ae-752c-451a-9bc5-4818e15d4cfe@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
| On 30 mayo, 12:56, Albertito <albertito1...@gmail.com> wrote:
| > On May 29, 11:43 pm, rvall...@gmail.com wrote:
| >
| >
| >
| >
| >
| > > On 28 mayo, 23:08, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >
| > > > Extremely silly Einsteinians (Brian Greene) do not know what
Einstein
| > > > discovered in 1907 and introduce in Einstein zombie world as many
| > > > dimensions as they can, moderately silly Einsteinians (Lee Smolin)
| > > > know the most important implication of Einstein's discovery, clever
| > > > Einsteinians (John Norton) know precisely what Einstein discovered:
| >
| > > >http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/251
| >
| > > >http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htmLeeSmolin:"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.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."
| >
| > > > Pentcho Valev
| > > > pva...@yahoo.com
| >
| > > Einstein's 1905 Relativity refers to constant c vacuum light speed. If
| > > we have a gravitational field, we have no vacuum. I don't see any
| > > contradiction between a constant c vacuum light speed and a variable
| > > light speed in a gravitational field (or the variable light speed in a
| > > variable refraction index media).
| >
| > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
| >
| > The contradiction is neat, you don't even know what
| > a vacuum is. The speed of light in a quasi-perfect vacuum
| > would be many orders in magnitude higher than the
| > standard value c.- Ocultar texto de la cita -
| >
| > - Mostrar texto de la cita -
| We are considering the 1907 epoch. A reference to any modern vacuum
| theory (like Dirac's one or any other) is totally out of place. We
| must interpret "vacuum" with the meaning it had for the majority of
| 1907 physicists, absent of any kind of bodies or material entities
| (like fields since Faraday). Remember that for the analysis of the
| Michelson-Morley experiment in the XIX century, even the air was
| considered a sufficient good approximation for vacuum. The constant c
| value for vacuum light speed was a very well established experimental
| fact in 1907. I don't know


There we have it, then.  And since you don't know, what the hell are
you blabbering about, you cretin?

-- 
Why did Einstein say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

1/2[tau(A)+tau(A')]= tau(B)
where
A = (0,0,0,t)
A' =(0,0,0,t+x'/(c-v) +x'/(c+v))
B = (x',0,0,t+x'/(c-v))
x' = x-vt

 Ref:  http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

"Easy: he did NOT say that." - cretin harald.vanlintelButNotThis@epfl.ch

Androcles