The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?  (Read 30776 times)

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« on: 20/07/2006 09:31:25 »
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/00/engtot.pdf
"The Second Law made its appearance in physics around 1850, but a half century later it was already surrounded by so much confusion that the British Association for the Advancement of Science decided to appoint a special committee with the task of providing clarity about the meaning of this law. However, its final report (Bryan 1891) did not settle the issue. Half a century later, the physicist/philosopher Bridgman still complained that there are almost as many formulations of the second law as there have been discussions of it (Bridgman 1941, p. 116). And even today, the Second Law remains so obscure that it continues to attract new efforts at clarification. A recent example is the work of Lieb and Yngvason (1999)......The historian of science and mathematician Truesdell made a detailed study of the historical development of thermodynamics in the period 1822-1854. He characterises the theory, even in its present state, as 'a dismal swamp of obscurity' (1980, p. 6) and 'a prime example to show that physicists are not exempt from the madness of crowds' (ibid. p. 8).......Clausius' verbal statement of the second law makes no sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition ; a century of philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandment ; a century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from the unclean.....Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times has it blanked and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot understand."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"
Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."
Einstein: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html

Pentcho Valev
« Last Edit: 08/08/2006 01:56:58 by daveshorts »


 

Offline DocN

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #1 on: 21/07/2006 16:47:51 »
I believe Einstein did try to disprove his theory (SR) based on the constancy of the velocity of light (c) but gave up on this project.  Later in his life, he did try to disprove some of his own theories.  So that is the way of science.
Doc
 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #2 on: 26/07/2006 07:14:19 »
quote:
Originally posted by DocN

I believe Einstein did try to disprove his theory (SR) based on the constancy of the velocity of light (c) but gave up on this project.  Later in his life, he did try to disprove some of his own theories.  So that is the way of science.
Doc



POSTSCIENTISM AND 2+2=5

In a sense, Einstein's theory is Newton's theory where a true premise - the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source - has been temporarily replaced with its negation - the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source - which is false. It is as if I had appropriated someone else's mathematical system where my only contribution was to replace 2+2=4 with 2+2=5, thereby extracting profit from miracles that follow (for instance, my premise 2+2=5 would allow me to "prove" that, in some cases, a(b+b )>(ab+ab)). As far as the ideological situation is concerned, George Orwell's description is perfect:

"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?"

In the era of Postscientism the old "Veni, Vidi, Vici" has been replaced by "Introduce absurdity, Destroy rationality, Become divinity". Einstein was not the first activist. The process started in 1850 when Clausius introduced the absurdity establishing that the maximal efficiency of heat engines is independent of "the nature of the substance by means of which the work is done":

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html

Pentcho Valev
 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #3 on: 30/07/2006 07:54:09 »
WORDS THAT DESTROYED RATIONALITY IN SCIENCE

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
http://www.mdpi.org/lin/clausius/clausius.htm
Rudolf Clausius, Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Wärme, Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 79, 368-97, 500-24 (1850):
"The ONLY change will occur in the distribution of the heat, since more heat will be transferred from B to A than from A to B, and so on the whole heat will be transferred from B to A. By repeating these two processes alternately it would be possible, without any expenditure of force OR ANY OTHER CHANGE, to transfer as much heat as we please from a cold to a hot body, and this is not in accord with the other relations of heat, since it always shows a tendency to equalize temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder bodies."

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, By A. Einstein, June 30, 1905:
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is INDEPENDENT OF THE STATE OF MOTION OF THE EMITTING BODY."

Ilya Prigogine, From Being to Becoming, Freeman and Co, 1980, p. 5:
"We must distinguish TWO TERMS IN THE ENTROPY CHANGE, dS: the first, deS, is the transfer of entropy across the boundaries of the system; the second, diS, is the entropy produced within the system."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #4 on: 26/07/2006 07:14:19 »
quote:
Originally posted by DocN

I believe Einstein did try to disprove his theory (SR) based on the constancy of the velocity of light (c) but gave up on this project.  Later in his life, he did try to disprove some of his own theories.  So that is the way of science.
Doc



POSTSCIENTISM AND 2+2=5

In a sense, Einstein's theory is Newton's theory where a true premise - the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source - has been temporarily replaced with its negation - the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source - which is false. It is as if I had appropriated someone else's mathematical system where my only contribution was to replace 2+2=4 with 2+2=5, thereby extracting profit from miracles that follow (for instance, my premise 2+2=5 would allow me to "prove" that, in some cases, a(b+b )>(ab+ab)). As far as the ideological situation is concerned, George Orwell's description is perfect:

"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?"

In the era of Postscientism the old "Veni, Vidi, Vici" has been replaced by "Introduce absurdity, Destroy rationality, Become divinity". Einstein was not the first activist. The process started in 1850 when Clausius introduced the absurdity establishing that the maximal efficiency of heat engines is independent of "the nature of the substance by means of which the work is done":

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html

Pentcho Valev
 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #5 on: 30/07/2006 07:54:09 »
WORDS THAT DESTROYED RATIONALITY IN SCIENCE

http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Clausius.html
http://www.mdpi.org/lin/clausius/clausius.htm
Rudolf Clausius, Ueber die bewegende Kraft der Wärme, Annalen der Physik und Chemie, 79, 368-97, 500-24 (1850):
"The ONLY change will occur in the distribution of the heat, since more heat will be transferred from B to A than from A to B, and so on the whole heat will be transferred from B to A. By repeating these two processes alternately it would be possible, without any expenditure of force OR ANY OTHER CHANGE, to transfer as much heat as we please from a cold to a hot body, and this is not in accord with the other relations of heat, since it always shows a tendency to equalize temperature differences and therefore to pass from hotter to colder bodies."

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, By A. Einstein, June 30, 1905:
"We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity'') to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is INDEPENDENT OF THE STATE OF MOTION OF THE EMITTING BODY."

Ilya Prigogine, From Being to Becoming, Freeman and Co, 1980, p. 5:
"We must distinguish TWO TERMS IN THE ENTROPY CHANGE, dS: the first, deS, is the transfer of entropy across the boundaries of the system; the second, diS, is the entropy produced within the system."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #6 on: 05/08/2006 06:11:11 »
WHY EINSTEIN WAS FED UP WITH RELATIVITY IN 1921

A suggestion:

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/07/einsteins_theory_of_infidelity.html

Pentcho Valev
 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #7 on: 06/08/2006 06:12:51 »
EINSTEIN: ETHER PARTLY EXISTS

Somewhat paradoxically, Einstein's deification is due to his mediocrity. What thinkers like Poincare regarded as dismal absurdity, e.g. I measure your clock to be slower than mine and you measure mine to be slower than yours, was offered by Einstein to the dazed world in combination with superimposed absurdities: I measure your clock to be slower than mine and you measure mine to be slower than yours but if you go and return you will find mine to be FASTER than yours.

Yet, although Einstein showered the dazed world with absurdities, he was extremely sensitive to potential danger (like any other juggler). So for Einstein ether did exist but only in a sense in which this existence did not threaten the divine theory:

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html :
"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable..."

Pentcho Valev


 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #8 on: 12/08/2006 09:03:23 »
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #9 on: 12/08/2006 13:25:43 »
Ok, the article points out that there is a big problem persuading physics graduates to teach the subject. This problem is sociogical rather than fundamental to the subject. What is your point?
 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #10 on: 14/08/2006 08:01:27 »
quote:
Originally posted by daveshorts

Ok, the article points out that there is a big problem persuading physics graduates to teach the subject. This problem is sociogical rather than fundamental to the subject. What is your point?



The title of the article shows that things are more serious than that. See also

http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley
http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
 

Offline daveshorts

  • Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2583
  • Physics, Experiments
    • View Profile
    • http://www.chaosscience.org.uk
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #11 on: 15/08/2006 12:54:30 »
All the ones I could be bothered to read were about the drop in student numbers dong Physics. I would have thought this has a few causes: Students would rather do something less challenging, biology is more fashionable, the shortage of physicists is causing a shortage of good physics teachers, you can't take things apart to learn how they work any more etc etc. It doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the theory.
 

Offline Mjhavok

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 468
    • View Profile
    • http://cantmakeadifference.blogspot.com
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #12 on: 15/08/2006 18:38:04 »
The answer to this thread is "none of them".
 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #13 on: 16/08/2006 09:47:18 »
quote:
Originally posted by daveshorts

All the ones I could be bothered to read were about the drop in student numbers dong Physics. I would have thought this has a few causes: Students would rather do something less challenging, biology is more fashionable, the shortage of physicists is causing a shortage of good physics teachers, you can't take things apart to learn how they work any more etc etc. It doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with the theory.



ACCELERATION OF PHOTONS AND EINSTEIN'S SECOND POSTULATE

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/07/light_goes_faster_in_reverse.html

Pentcho Valev


 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #14 on: 30/08/2006 16:33:10 »
THE HONESTY OF EINSTEIN'S HYPNOTISTS IS INCREASING

Einstein's hypnotists don't camouflage anymore the fact that the speed of light is variable, not constant:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
"On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." 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 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . 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 [. . .] 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. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so."

Why is hypnotists' honesty increasing? Because hypnotists feel much more comfortable now: the voice of Einstein's zombies has been reduced to a simple echo. For instance:

The hypnotist: CONSTANT! Zombies' echo: CONSTANT, CONStant, constant.....

The hypnotist: VARIABLE! Zombies' echo: VARIABLE, VARIable, variable......

Pentcho Valev
 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #15 on: 30/08/2006 16:33:10 »
THE HONESTY OF EINSTEIN'S HYPNOTISTS IS INCREASING

Einstein's hypnotists don't camouflage anymore the fact that the speed of light is variable, not constant:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
"On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." 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 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . 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 [. . .] 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. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so."

Why is hypnotists' honesty increasing? Because hypnotists feel much more comfortable now: the voice of Einstein's zombies has been reduced to a simple echo. For instance:

The hypnotist: CONSTANT! Zombies' echo: CONSTANT, CONStant, constant.....

The hypnotist: VARIABLE! Zombies' echo: VARIABLE, VARIable, variable......

Pentcho Valev
 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #16 on: 02/09/2006 06:51:11 »
WHY EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT IS NECESSARY

In 1911 Albert Einstein showed that in a gravitational field the speed of light is variable:

c' = c + V/c                        /1/

where V is the gravitational potential. By applying the equivalence principle one could easily convert /1/ into

c' = c + v                         /2/

where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer in the absence of a gravitational field. Then one could remember Einstein's words: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false", and the catastrophe would be irreversible.

Only a criminal cult can replace an imminent tragedy with an eternal happiness where money flows vigorously and trouble-makers are nipped in the bud.

Pentcho Valev  
 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #17 on: 03/09/2006 09:43:55 »
ILYA PRIGOGINE: GREATER THAN EINSTEIN

Von Neumann once said:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/00/engtot.pdf
"No one knows what entropy really is..."

That is, the concept contains maximum obscurity and nobody, not even Einstein, could introduce more obscurity. Perhaps Von Neumann did not know what Prigogine was able to do. He simply combined two incommensurable equations (eqs. 4.2 and 4.3' in I.Prigogine, "From Being to Becoming", Freeman and Co, 1980), obtained a new absurd expression for the entropy (eq. 4.13) and so converted the most obscure concept in science into a commodity-like entity part of which is produced within the system and the rest is imported: "We must distinguish TWO TERMS IN THE ENTROPY CHANGE, dS: the first, deS, is the transfer of entropy across the boundaries of the system; the second, diS, is the entropy produced within the system." (Prigogine's book, p. 5).

Needless to say, Prigogine was awarded the Nobel prize for this development of the obscurity.

Pentcho Valev
 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #18 on: 05/09/2006 08:54:04 »
EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT DEAD?

Eric Gisse wrote in sci.physics.relativity:
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > In 1911 Albert Einstein showed that in a gravitational field the speed
> > of light is variable:
>
> Who cares? 1911 was 4 years before 1915, which was when General
> Relativity was complete.

There has never been so much confusion and despair in Einstein's criminal cult. That must be the end. See also the discussion in the NATURE newsblog:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html

Both hypnotists and zombies should sing "Divine Einstein" for the last time and try to find some more profitable business.

http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm :

Divine Einstein! by Marian McKenzie & Walter Smith

(To the tune of “I’m Lookin’ Over a Four-leaf Clover”)

No-one’s as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one’s as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That’s always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one’s as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com
 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #19 on: 15/09/2006 06:44:56 »
THE LAST CONVULSION OF EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT

Einstein's cult has spent billions of dollars for the destruction of human rationality and the success is remarkable. In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift: their result confirmed Einstein's formula c'=c+V/c, where c' is the VARIABLE speed of light in a gravitational field, c is the initial speed of light relative to the light source and V is the gravitational potential. By applying the equivalence principle one can easily deduce c'=c+v, where c' is the VARIABLE speed of light in the absence of a gravitational field and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Clearly, the gravitational redshift is fatal for Einstein's theory and modern physics in general. Yet the destroyed human rationality has been misled into believing that the redshift is a glorious confirmation of Einstein's divinity.

However happiness cannot be eternal and after 100 years of uncontrolled outrages Einstein's cult will have to disappear. Its last convulsion can be seen in

http://www.physorg.com/news77373279.html

where the gravitational redshift is shown to confirm, for the last time, the divine theory.

Pentcho Valev
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #20 on: 16/09/2006 12:26:37 »
quote:
Originally posted by Pentcho Valev

ILYA PRIGOGINE: GREATER THAN EINSTEIN
Ilya Prigogine is the same person who (in his late years, I think) state that theory of chickens able to make a nuclear reaction to transform Potassium  into Calcium, isnt'it? You want to make a comparison between such a person and Einstein? You need a lot of courage!
 

Offline lightarrow

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4586
  • Thanked: 7 times
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #21 on: 16/09/2006 12:26:37 »
quote:
Originally posted by Pentcho Valev

ILYA PRIGOGINE: GREATER THAN EINSTEIN
Ilya Prigogine is the same person who (in his late years, I think) state that theory of chickens able to make a nuclear reaction to transform Potassium  into Calcium, isnt'it? You want to make a comparison between such a person and Einstein? You need a lot of courage!
 

Offline bigtim

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 26
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #22 on: 22/09/2006 21:36:43 »
quote:
Originally posted by Pentcho Valev


... force of gravity works? Or ...
Pentcho Valev



This is a common missconception. Gravity is not a force. The force is the product of mass and the strength of the gravitational filed, ie, the quotient of the ratio force/mass.

Big Tim
 

Offline Pentcho Valev

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #23 on: 26/09/2006 12:19:18 »
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT AND EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT

The main concern of Einstein's hypnotists is to camouflage the fact that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source and therefore Einstein's theory (and modern physics in general) is just a farce. The camouflage involves even simulated fights among hypnotists:

http://chronicle.com/free/v49/i23/23a01401.htm

It is easy to see that hypnotists always discuss the idea of variability of the speed of light in a way that has nothing to do with Einstein's original definition of constancy (the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source). In fact, in 1911 Einstein showed that in a gravitational field the speed of light is VARIABLE:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
"On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." 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 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

By applying the equivalence principle one could easily convert Einstein's formula into

c' = c + v

valid in the absence of a gravitational field, where c is the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Then one could remember Einstein's words:

"If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

 

Offline bostjan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #24 on: 26/09/2006 19:22:29 »
First of all, who do you trust more for answers in the field of physics?  A physicist or a hypnotist?  If I want someone hypnotized, I would not go to a physist.  ;)

Also, you must understand that in a gravitational field, you are accelerating, and thus your frame of reference is non-inertial.  You cannot use the basic laws and intuitions of being in an inertial frame when you are in a non-inertial frame.

I have yet to see any argument that the speed of light is affected by the speed of the source.  The arguments you provide, although large in number, are all purely rhetorical and not logically based.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
« Reply #24 on: 26/09/2006 19:22:29 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums