🚀 go-pugleaf

On Apr 3, 9:02 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 7:48 am, OsherD <mdocto...@ca.rr.com> wrote in sci.physics:
>
> > From Osher Doctorow
>
> > Two Netherlands researchers, Christian Mantz and Tomislav Prkopec of
> > U. Utrecht Netherlands, in "Hermitian gravity and cosmology," 23
> > pages, arXiv: 0804.0213 v1 [gr-qc] 1 Apr 2008, admit that GR needs to
> > be generalized,
>
> There is a single problem with general relativity but this single
> problem is FATAL: the theory inherited Einstein's 1905 false light
> postulate (in the absence of a gravitational field, the speed of light
> is independent of the speed of the light source, c'=c) which, in
> general relativity, coexists with its true antithesis given by
> Newton's emission theory of light (in the absence of a gravitational
> field, the speed of light is c'=c+v, where v is the relative speed of
> the light source and the observer). In this sense Einstein's whole
> theory of relativity is an INCONSISTENCY and hypnotists in Einstein
> criminal cult know that:
>
> 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.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."
>
> http://www.bartleby.com/173/22.html
> Albert Einstein: "In the second place our result shows that, 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 and to
> which we have already frequently referred, 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. Now we might
> think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity
> and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the
> dust....."

So, instead of wasting taxpayers' money for their idiotic conferences:

http://www.beyond-einstein-2008.de/
http://www.spacetimesociety.org/conferences/2008/

Einsteinians should just look for someone who can explain to them why
the fact that the speed of light "varies with position" in a
gravitational field proves, unequivocally, that Einstein's 1905 light
postulate is FALSE.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com