Pentcho

Einstein's idiocies would not have been accepted so easily if rationality in science had not been already seriously damaged by two concepts that might be called "rationality terminators": the second law of thermodynamics and the entropy. The story began in the following way: http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev4.htm and since then many prominent scientists have fought against the paralysing obscurity but in vain. Since 2001 there has been a nice critical analysis on internet by a famous philosopher of physics: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/ Yet nothing can stop criminal thermodynamic gurus. They have been destroying students' rationality for 150 years, they have got a lot of money and prestige for that and they see no reason why the process should stop. Pentcho Valev

Velocity and speed do indeed have different meanings in today's physics and this has been used by relativists for confusing the problem. Yet the problem is easy to solve. According to Einstein's second postulate, some X is independent of the speed of the light source or observer. Also, this X has a constant value of c=300000 km/s in vacuum. Finally, Einstein says in Chapter 22 that the second postulate is invalid in a gravitational field and the same X VARIES WITH POSITION. Clearly, X is the SCALAR, the speed. "Velocity" is a bad term in this case: Einstein's second postulate is about the SCALAR, not about the vector. Pentcho

You are mistaken. See again the quotations from Einstein's "Relativity", think on them and finally take notice of what one of your gurus says on sci.physics.relativity: > AFAIK Einstein basically thought in German, which does not have > different words for "speed" and "velocity" ("die Geschwindigkeit" is > used for both). Certainly his "velocity of propagation" could be phrased > as "speed of propagation" without changing the underlying physics. > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com Pentcho Valev

Unlike thermodynamicists who managed to camouflage inextricably their false fundamental principle (see the two references in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_thermal_and_statistical_physics ), Einstein was not so successful in camouflaging his. He did try indeed in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" but still both the expression "The speed of light is constant, independent of..." and the value 300000 km/s remained popular. It is not difficult to see that the results of the theory of relativity fall into three categories: 1. Corollaries of the false principle of CONSTANCY of the speed of light (the c principle). Examples: symmetrical time dilation, symmetrical length contraction. These are all contradictory and can be refuted through reductio ad absurdum: http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm 2. Corollaries of the true principle of VARIABILITY of the speed of light (the c+v principle). Example: the frequency shift factor (1+phi/c^2): http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm 3. Corollaries of Einstein's whims. Examples: asymmetrical time contraction (the clock at rest runs FASTER than the clock moving with a constant speed in a closed polygonal line), length dilation (according to a non-rotating observer, the periphery of a rotating disk is LONGER than the periphery of a non-rotating disc): http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev6.htm Pentcho Valev

Bryan Wallace http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm : "The true scientist must have faith and believe in the scientific method of testing theories, and not in the theories themselves. I agree with Seeds argument that "A pseudoscience is something that pretends to be a science but does not obey the rules of good conduct common to all sciences." Because many of the dominant theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories, and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in, should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status, wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes." Pentcho Valev

Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 7: "There is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which light is propagated in empty space. Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c=300000 km/s." Chapter 22: "...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." The rational world would ask: How does the velocity of propagation of light VARY WITH POSITION? Increases and becomes greater than c=300000 km/s? Decreases? Increase and decrease depend on what? The zombie world asks nothing. It learns by rote, celebrates, worships, sings dithyrambs, eats and teaches how to learn by rote, celebrate, worship, sing dithyrambs and eat. Pentcho Valev

The frequency shift factor, 1+phi/c^2, that Einstein obtains in Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" and that later is confirmed experimentally, is: A) Compatible with the principle of constancy of the speed of light (the c principle) and incompatible with the principle of dependency of the speed of light on the speed of source or observer (the c+v principle)? B) Compatible with the c+v principle and incompatible with the c principle? An argument favouring (B) can be seen in http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev3.htm . If this argument is correct, we have an experimental falsification of the theory of relativity (a la Popper). Pentcho Valev

Experimentalists send a signal, detect its arrival and determine its speed: the speed is (e.g. four times) greater than 300000 km/s. At least that is what the public should know: http://i-newswire.com/pr43033.html http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796 The Criminal Relativity Cult (CRC) have sanctioned the information on condition that experimentalists should call the signal "Hamlet" and convince the public that, although the signal exists (after all, one sends it and detects its arrival), it nevertheless does not exist. More precisely, the signal should be deprived of any information and then it is clear that if something is deprived of any information, it simply does not exist. And if something does not exist, it can by no means threaten divine theory of relativity. However CRC soon discover that "total informationlessness" is too contradictory or at least that the public would not believe this particular version of the lie: Tom Roberts wrote (on sci.physics.relativity): > Any _thing_ that propagates always carries some information, its own > presence at least. But interference artifacts between existing waves > need not carry information (and usually don't). > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com So CRC have studied carefully a moving picture of Hamlet: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html and found their last resort: Hamlet cannot move before the front end of the waves and since the speed of the front end cannot surpass 300000 km/s.... Why Hamlet should be sent together with the front end is for the moment a grand secret in CRC: the initiated don't wish to think of a Hamlet sent after the front end has reached its destination. Pentcho Valev

(Compare with http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/1/ ) FALSITY IS TRUTH The postulate of constancy of the speed of light is false (A. Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 22), but the theory of relativity is true. Carnot's premise (heat is an indestructible substance) is false, but its corollary (the second law of thermodynamics) is true. OBSCURITY IS POWER C. Truesdell: « 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 commandement ; 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. » A. Eddington: «The law that entropy always increases, - the second law of thermodynamics - holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these experimentalists bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope ; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.» SCIENCE IS MONEY http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0507/24/D04-256983.htm http://einsteinplag.tripod.com/intro.html http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm Pentcho Valev

Einstein and other initiated have always known, except perhaps for a short period after 1905, that the second postulate (of the constancy of the speed of light) is false. Accordingly, while numerous bellicose zombies destroyed the life of anyone questioning the truth of the second postulate, the initiated developed an alternative strategy called "Relativity without c". This strategy, combined with the traditional one defended by zombies and called "Relativity with c", formed eventually the global strategy called "Relativity Forever". Three examples of the strategy "Relativity without c" in action: 1. A. Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 22. 2. The initiated Tom Roberts, on sci.physics.relativity: Tom Roberts wrote: > Pentcho Valev wrote: > > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? > > Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can > also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the > standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated > observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in > Minkowski spacetime). > > GR predicts that measurements of the speed of light in a > locally-inertial frame using standard clocks and rulers will always > obtain the value c (to within the accuracy that the local frame is > inertial). But if you use non-standard rulers or clocks, or measure over > a non-local distance, or in a non-inertial frame, then you can obtain a > different value; perhaps wildly different. For instance, in an > accelerated rocketship in Minkowski spacetime one could measure an > infinite value for the speed of light; or a zero value, or even crazier > values.... > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com 3. "Relativity without c" on p. 35 in http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf . Clearly, the only "Relativity without c" turn out the be the Galilean transformations (p. 37), but the naive reader (in the era of Postscientism almost all readers are naive) is misled into believing that equations having the same form as the Lorentz transformations (equations 10.71 on p. 36) are indispensable. And the indispensability of such equations guarantees the success of the global strategy "Relativity Forever". Pentcho Valev

Des vitesses plus grandes que 300000 km/s ont ete obtenues dans des experiences diverses: http://i-newswire.com/pr43033.html http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2796 Mais les experimentateurs (qui n'ont rien a voir avec la theorie de la relativite) expliquent aux zombies de la relativite pourquoi la theorie quand meme reste valide, et les zombies repetent l'explication trois fois par jour. C'est le principe d'Ignatius de Loyola: "That we may in all things attain the truth, that we may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it a fixed principle, that what I see white I believe to be black if the Romish Church define it so to be." Une illustration du signal superlumineux: http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html Le signal superlumineux peut etre appele "Hamlet": il existe parce qu'on enregistre son depart et son arrivee (sinon on ne pourrait pas mesurer sa vitesse), mais en meme temps il ne doit pas exister parce qu'il est dangereux pour la theorie de la relativite. Ce signal est vraiment tres dangereux, par exemple quand on tente de resoudre Probleme 6 ("Train in a tunnel"), p. 47 (solution a la p. 53), dans http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf Pentcho Valev

Einstein et les autres inities ont toujours su, a l'exception peut-etre d'une courte periode apres 1905, que le second postulat (de la constance de la vitesse de la lumiere) est faux. Par consequent, pendant que les nombreux zombies belliqueux ruinaient la vie de chacun mettant en question la verite du second postulat, les inities developpaient une strategie alternative intitulee "Relativite sans c". Cette strategie, en combinaison avec la strategie traditionnelle defendue par les zombies et intitulee "Relativite avec c", a finalement forme la strategie globale intitulee "Relativite pour toujours". Trois exemples illustrant la strategie "Relativite sans c": 1. A. Einstein, "La Relativite", Chapitre 22. 2. L'initie Tom Roberts, sur sci.physics.relativity: Tom Roberts wrote: > Pentcho Valev wrote: > > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? > Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can > also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the > standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated > observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in > Minkowski spacetime). > GR predicts that measurements of the speed of light in a > locally-inertial frame using standard clocks and rulers will always > obtain the value c (to within the accuracy that the local frame is > inertial). But if you use non-standard rulers or clocks, or measure over > a non-local distance, or in a non-inertial frame, then you can obtain a > different value; perhaps wildly different. For instance, in an > accelerated rocketship in Minkowski spacetime one could measure an > infinite value for the speed of light; or a zero value, or even crazier > values.... > Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com 3. "Relativite sans c", p. 35 dans http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf . Evidemment, "Relativite sans c" n'est que les transformations de Galilee (p. 37), mais le lecteur est force a croire que des equations avec la meme forme que les equations de Lorentz (les equations 10.71 a la p. 36) sont toujours indispensables. Et comme elles sont indispensables, le succes de la strategie globale "Relativite pour toujours" est garanti. Pentcho Valev