🚀 go-pugleaf

There are some interesting, intelligent -- and diverse -- viewponts
discussed here.

Any comments I would like to make would be too long to place here.
SO-- I have a proposition: I have written two books that I will send
free (they normally sell for $35.00)to any one requesting one or both
of them.

"On the Quantum as a Physical Entity" and "A Diagnosis of Special
Relativity"

Vertner Vergon

vertvergon@gmail.com  or   exeterpublishing@yahoo.com




On Nov 6, 9:55 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Cosmological observations should not be used as evidence for or
> against fundamental theories (Einstein's relativity) for the simple
> reason that they are contaminated with lots of explicit or implicit
> auxiliary hypotheses, hypotheses that do not belong to the fundamental
> theory. In the case discussed below the observation that high-energy
> photons arrive later than low-energy ones is accompanied by the
> following hypothesis:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18068-universes-quantum-speed-b...
> "If space-time is grainy, higher-energy photons would move more slowly
> than their lower-energy counterparts. That's because higher-energy
> photons have smaller wavelengths, which makes them more sensitive to
> tiny fluctuations in space-time."
>
> A much more reasonable hypothesis as to why high-energy photons travel
> at a lower speed than low-energy ones could be advanced and yet, in my
> view, Einstein's 1905 light postulate could be at most at stake but by
> no means rejected if this particular observation were the only
> evidence.
>
> There are two experiments, those of Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka,
> where all auxiliary hypotheses have become part of the fundamental
> theory itself. This has created some "classical" internal ambiguity
> but, on the other hand, arbitrary shifts in interpretation caused by
> new ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses are precluded. So the fate of
> Einstein's theory can unequivocally be decided by answering the
> following questions:
>
> The Michelson-Morley experiment is consistent with:
>
> (A) Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c)
>
> (B) the antithesis of Einstein's 1905 light postulate, the equation
> c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, where v is the
> speed of the light source (relative to the observer)
>
> (C) both Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) and its antithesis,
> the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light, where
> v is the speed of the light source (relative to the observer)
>
> The Pound-Rebka experiment is consistent with:
>
> (D) the assumption that the speed of light is constant in a
> gravitational field
>
> (E) the assumption that the speed of light varies with the
> gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+V/
> c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light and advanced by
> Einstein in 1911
>
> (F) the assumption that the speed of light varies with the
> gravitational potential V in accordance with the equation c'=c(1+2V/
> c^2) advanced by Einstein in 1915
>
> Careful analysis would show that (B) and (E) form the only reasonable
> couple.
>
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> In Einsteiniana:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20327246.800-13-more-things-mag...
> "In 2005, researchers at the MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in
> the Canary Islands were studying gamma-ray bursts emitted by the black
> hole in the centre of the Markarian 501 galaxy, half a billion light
> years away. The burst's high-energy gamma rays arrived at the
> telescope 4 minutes later than the lower-energy rays. Both parts of
> the spectrum should have been emitted at the same time. So is the time
> lag due to the high-energy radiation travelling slower through space?
> That wouldn't make sense: it would contravene one of the central
> tenets of special relativity. According to Einstein, all
> electromagnetic radiation always travels through vacuum at the cosmic
> speed limit the speed of light. The energy of the radiation should be
> absolutely irrelevant."
>
> http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/11/04/gamma-rays-einstein.html
> "At stake was nothing less than a foundation of modern physics --
> Einstein's theory of relativity, which posits that all electromagnetic
> radiation travels at the same speed, whether low-energy radio waves,
> high-energy X-rays or gamma rays, or any wavelength in between. (...)
> After a journey of more than 7 billion light-years, however, the gamma
> ray photons arrived nine-tenths of a second apart on May 9, 2009 --
> not enough of a lag to account for the theorized quantum effects.
> "Einstein, at this point, wins again," Michelson said."
>
> http://live.psu.edu/story/42610
> "Of the many gamma-ray photons detected by Fermi from the 2.1-second
> burst, two had energies differing by a million times. Yet after
> traveling some seven billion years, the pair of photons arrived just
> nine-tenths of a second apart. "This measurement eliminates any
> approach to a new theory of gravity that predicts a strong energy-
> dependent change in the speed of light," Michelson said. The long-
> distance experiment showed that "To one part in 100 million billion,
> these two photons traveled at the same speed. "EINSTEIN STILL RULES,"
> Michelson said."
>
> In Big Brother's world:
>
> http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
> George Orwell: "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?"
>
> Breathtaking news in Big Brother's world: In 2005, researchers at the
> MAGIC gamma-ray telescope on La Palma in the Canary Islands added two
> and two and did not get five, but then Stanford University's Peter
> Michelson, the lead scientist on the Fermi Large Area Telescope, added
> two and two again and did not get five either. "BIG BROTHER STILL
> RULES,"Michelson said.
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com