GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY

[Pentcho Valev]

Now all Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) know that Einstein
1905 light postulate is false so special relativity is just a
dangerous relict of a bygone era and should be abandoned:

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."

Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIERE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 298-299:
"La racine du mal etait clairement la relativite restreinte. Tous ces
paradoxes resultaient d'effets bien connus comme la contraction des
longueurs, la dilatation du temps, ou E=mc^2, tous des predictions
directes de la relativite restreinte. (...) La consequence en etait
inevitable: pour edifier une theorie coherente de la gravite
quantique, quelle qu'elle soit, nous [Joao Magueijo et Lee Smolin]
devions commencer par abandonner la relativite restreinte. (...) Mais,
comme nous l'avons vu, celle-ci repose sur deux principes
independants. Le premier est la relativite du mouvement, le second la
constance de la vitesse de la lumiere. Une des solutions possibles a
notre probleme pouvait etre d'abandonner la relativite du mouvement.
(...) C'est une possibilite bien sur, mais nous avons choisi
l'alternative evidente: preserver la relativite du mouvement, mais
admettre qu'a de tres hautes energies, la vitesse de la lumiere ne
soit plus constante."

http://www.fqxi.org/data/articles/Searching_for_the_Golden_Spike.pdf
"Loop quantum gravity also makes the heretical prediction that the
speed of light depends on its frequency. That prediction violates
special relativity, Einstein's rule that light in a vacuum travels at
a constant speed for all observers..."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smolin03/smolin03_print.html
Lee Smolin: "Now, here is the really interesting part: Some of the
effects predicted by the theory appear to be in conflict with one of
the principles of Einstein's special theory of relativity, the theory
that says that the speed of light is a universal constant. It's the
same for all photons, and it is independent of the motion of the
sender or observer. How is this possible, if that theory is itself
based on the principles of relativity? The principle of the constancy
of the speed of light is part of special relativity, but we quantized
Einstein's general theory of relativity.....But there is another
possibility. This is that the principle of relativity is preserved,
but Einstein's special theory of relativity requires modification so
as to allow photons to have a speed that depends on energy. The most
shocking thing I have learned in the last year is that this is a real
possibility. A photon can have an energy-dependent speed without
violating the principle of relativity! This was understood a few years
ago by Amelino Camelia. I got involved in this issue through work I
did with Joao Magueijo, a very talented young cosmologist at Imperial
College, London. During the two years I spent working there, Joao kept
coming to me and bugging me with this problem.....These ideas all
seemed crazy to me, and for a long time I didn't get it. I was sure it
was wrong! But Joao kept bugging me and slowly I realized that they
had a point. We have since written several papers together showing how
Einstein's postulates may be modified to give a new version of special
relativity in which the speed of light can depend on energy."

However Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) also know that, in
general relativity, Einstein secretly abandoned his 1905 false light
postulate and reintroduced VARIABLE speed of light:

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.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."

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....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 / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

So Einsteinians will continue to refer to and worship general
relativity but, on the other hand, they will force Einstein zombie
world to forget the dangerous special relativity (and Einstein zombie
world will forget it very soon):

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026861.500-did-our-cosmos-exist-before-the-big-bang.html
NEW SCIENTIST: "The theory that the recycled universe was based on,
called loop quantum cosmology (LQC), had managed to illuminate the
very birth of the universe - something even Einstein's general theory
of relativity fails to do....LQC is in fact the first tangible
application of another theory called loop quantum gravity, which
cunningly combines Einstein's theory of gravity with quantum
mechanics....When the team used LQC to look at the behaviour of our
universe long after expansion began, they were in for a shock - it
started to collapse, challenging everything we know about the cosmos.
"This was a complete departure from general relativity," says Singh,
who is now at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in
Waterloo, Canada. "It was blatantly wrong." Ashtekar took it hard. "I
was pretty depressed," he says. "It didn't bode well for LQC."
However, after more feverish mathematics, Ashtekar, Singh and
Pawlowski solved the problem. Early versions of the theory described
the evolution of the universe in terms of quanta of area, but a closer
look revealed a subtle error. Ashtekar, Singh and Pawlowski corrected
this and found that the calculations now involved tiny volumes of
space. It made a crucial difference. Now the universe according to LQC
agreed brilliantly with general relativity...."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Sjouke Burry]

Post by Pentcho Valev
Now all Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) know that

Amazing what mental illness can do to a person.

[Pentcho Valev]

How fiercely hypnotists force Einstein zombie world to forget
Einstein's 1905 false light postulate:

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg20026801.500-why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity
29 October 2008
Mark Buchanan
NEW SCIENTIST
"Welcome to the weird world of Einstein's special relativity, where as
things move faster they shrink, and where time gets so distorted that
even talking about events being simultaneous is pointless. That all
follows, as Albert Einstein showed, from the fact that light always
travels at the same speed, however you look at it. Really? Mitchell
Feigenbaum, a physicist at The Rockefeller University in New York,
begs to differ. He's the latest and most prominent in a line of
researchers insisting that Einstein's theory has nothing to do with
light - whatever history and the textbooks might say. "Not only is it
not necessary," he says, "but there's absolutely no room in the theory
for it." What's more, Feigenbaum claims in a paper on the arXiv
preprint server that has yet to be peer-reviewed, if only the father
of relativity, Galileo Galilei, had known a little more modern
mathematics back in the 17th century, he could have got as far as
Einstein did (http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1234). "Galileo's thoughts are
almost 400 years old," he says. "But they're still extraordinarily
potent. They're enough on their own to give Einstein's relativity,
without any additional knowledge." (...) This was a problem if
Maxwell's theory, like all good physical theories, was to follow
Galileo's rule and apply for everyone. If we do not know who measures
the speed of light in the equations, how can we modify them to apply
from other perspectives? Einstein's workaround was that we don't have
to. Faced with the success of Maxwell's theory, he simply added a
second assumption to Galileo's first: that, relative to any observer,
light always travels at the same speed. This "second postulate" is the
source of all Einstein's eccentric physics of shrinking space and
haywire clocks. And with a little further thought, it leads to the
equivalence of mass and energy embodied in the iconic equation E =
mc2. The argument is not about the physics, which countless
experiments have confirmed. It is about whether we can reach the same
conclusions without hoisting light onto its highly irregular pedestal.
(...) But in fact, says Feigenbaum, both Galileo and Einstein missed a
surprising subtlety in the maths - one that renders Einstein's second
postulate superfluous. (...) The result turns the historical logic of
Einstein's relativity on its head. Those contortions of space and time
that Einstein derived from the properties of light actually emerge
from even more basic, purely mathematical considerations. Light's
special position in relativity is a historical accident. (...) The
idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light could
actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a nasty
shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles of
light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small - less
than 10-49 grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply that our
understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that electric
charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough, but a
massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second postulate,
as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same
speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists'
beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by Pentcho Valev
How fiercely hypnotists force Einstein zombie world to forget
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801.500-why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity.html
Why Einstein was wrong about relativity
29 October 2008
Mark Buchanan
NEW SCIENTIST
"Welcome to the weird world of Einstein's special relativity, where as
things move faster they shrink, and where time gets so distorted that
even talking about events being simultaneous is pointless. That all
follows, as Albert Einstein showed, from the fact that light always
travels at the same speed, however you look at it. Really? Mitchell
Feigenbaum, a physicist at The Rockefeller University in New York,
begs to differ. He's the latest and most prominent in a line of
researchers insisting that Einstein's theory has nothing to do with
light - whatever history and the textbooks might say. "Not only is it
not necessary," he says, "but there's absolutely no room in the theory
for it." What's more, Feigenbaum claims in a paper on the arXiv
preprint server that has yet to be peer-reviewed, if only the father
of relativity, Galileo Galilei, had known a little more modern
mathematics back in the 17th century, he could have got as far as
Einstein did (http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.1234). "Galileo's thoughts are
almost 400 years old," he says. "But they're still extraordinarily
potent. They're enough on their own to give Einstein's relativity,
without any additional knowledge." (...) This was a problem if
Maxwell's theory, like all good physical theories, was to follow
Galileo's rule and apply for everyone. If we do not know who measures
the speed of light in the equations, how can we modify them to apply
from other perspectives? Einstein's workaround was that we don't have
to. Faced with the success of Maxwell's theory, he simply added a
second assumption to Galileo's first: that, relative to any observer,
light always travels at the same speed. This "second postulate" is the
source of all Einstein's eccentric physics of shrinking space and
haywire clocks. And with a little further thought, it leads to the
equivalence of mass and energy embodied in the iconic equation E =
mc2. The argument is not about the physics, which countless
experiments have confirmed. It is about whether we can reach the same
conclusions without hoisting light onto its highly irregular pedestal.
(...) But in fact, says Feigenbaum, both Galileo and Einstein missed a
surprising subtlety in the maths - one that renders Einstein's second
postulate superfluous. (...) The result turns the historical logic of
Einstein's relativity on its head. Those contortions of space and time
that Einstein derived from the properties of light actually emerge
from even more basic, purely mathematical considerations. Light's
special position in relativity is a historical accident. (...) The
idea that Einstein's relativity has nothing to do with light could
actually come in rather handy. For one thing, it rules out a nasty
shock if anyone were ever to prove that photons, the particles of
light, have mass. We know that the photon's mass is very small - less
than 10-49 grams. A photon with any mass at all would imply that our
understanding of electricity and magnetism is wrong, and that electric
charge might not be conserved. That would be problem enough, but a
massive photon would also spell deep trouble for the second postulate,
as a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same
speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists'
beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity."

Of course, "Relativity independent of Einstein's 1905 false light
postulate" is old camouflage used by Einstein criminal cult; Jean-Marc
Levy-Leblond is the author but there are also a few plagiarists:

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/chronogeometrie.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond "De la relativite à la chronogeometrie ou: Pour
en finir avec le "second postulat" et autres fossiles": "D'autre part,
nous savons aujourd'hui que l'invariance de la vitesse de la lumiere
est une consequence de la nullite de la masse du photon. Mais,
empiriquement, cette masse, aussi faible soit son actuelle borne
superieure experimentale, ne peut et ne pourra jamais etre consideree
avec certitude comme rigoureusement nulle. Il se pourrait meme que de
futures mesures mettent en evidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle,
du photon ; la lumiere alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la
lumiere", ou, plus precisement, la vitesse de la lumiere, desormais
variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les
procedures operationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat"
deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La theorie elle-meme en serait-elle
invalidee ? Heureusement, il n'en est rien ; mais, pour s'en assurer,
il convient de la refonder sur des bases plus solides, et d'ailleurs
plus economiques. En verite, le "premier postulat" suffit, a la
condition de l'exploiter a fond."

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/onemorederivation.pdf
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "This is the point of view from wich I intend
to criticize the overemphasized role of the speed of light in the
foundations of the special relativity, and to propose an approach to
these foundations that dispenses with the hypothesis of the invariance
of c....We believe that special relativity at the present time stands
as a universal theory discribing the structure of a common space-time
arena in which all fundamental processes take place....The evidence of
the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way
the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all
its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon
velocity."

http://www.amazon.com/Einsteins-Relativity-Beyond-Approaches-Theoretical/dp/9810238886
Jong-Ping Hsu: "The fundamentally new ideas of the first purpose are
developed on the basis of the term paper of a Harvard physics
undergraduate. They lead to an unexpected affirmative answer to the
long-standing question of whether it is possible to construct a
relativity theory without postulating the constancy of the speed of
light and retaining only the first postulate of special relativity.
This question was discussed in the early years following the discovery
of special relativity by many physicists, including Ritz, Tolman,
Kunz, Comstock and Pauli, all of whom obtained negative answers."

http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc1ebdf49c012de2
Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a
nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant
speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both
Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains
of applicability would be reduced)."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/lay/05science.pdf
Einsteiniana's hypnotists discuss in the journal Science: "Special
Relativity Reconsidered. Einstein’s special theory of relativity
reaches into every corner of modern physics. So why are so many trying
so hard to prove it wrong?....Now, however, some physicists wonder
whether special relativity might be subtly - and perhaps beautifully -
wrong....Yet a growing number of physicists are entertaining the
possibility that special relativity is not quite correct....Only a
decade ago, questioning special relativity would have struck many as
heretical, says Robert Bluhm, a theoretical physicist at Colby College
in Waterville, Maine. "When I started working on it, I was kind of
sheepish about it because I didn’t want to be perceived as a
crackpot," Bluhm says. "It seems to really have gone mainstream in the
past few years.".....According to legend, Einstein invented special
relativity to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment....Why are some
physicists so keen to take on Einstein? Answers vary widely."

Einstein zombie world:

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/lay/05science.pdf
Einsteiniana's hypnotists discuss in the journal Science: "Special
Relativity Reconsidered. Einstein’s special theory of relativity
reaches into every corner of modern physics. So why are so many trying
so hard to prove it wrong?....Now, however, some physicists wonder
whether special relativity might be subtly - and perhaps beautifully -
wrong....Yet a growing number of physicists are entertaining the
possibility that special relativity is not quite correct....Only a
decade ago, questioning special relativity would have struck many as
heretical, says Robert Bluhm, a theoretical physicist at Colby College
in Waterville, Maine. "When I started working on it, I was kind of
sheepish about it because I didn’t want to be perceived as a
crackpot," Bluhm says. "It seems to really have gone mainstream in the
past few years.".....According to legend, Einstein invented special
relativity to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment....Why are some
physicists so keen to take on Einstein? Answers vary widely."
"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY
http://youtu.be/5PkLLXhONvQ

The legend mentioned above ("Einstein invented special relativity to
explain the Michelson-Morley experiment") is often replaced by another
one, created by Einstein himself and equally dishonest:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=5640
John Gribbin: "Just as worryingly, given that the story involved is
over 100 years old, they fail to give due emphasis to the importance
of James Clerk Maxwell's influence on Albert Einstein. Maxwell's
equations of the electromagnetic field define a speed of light that is
the same for all observers, and Einstein always said that it was this
prediction from those equations of the constancy of the speed of light
that led him to his special theory of relativity."

The truth: According to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light is
VARIABLE and obeys the equation c'=c+v, where c is the speed of light
relative to the aether and v is the speed of the observer relative to
the aether. It seems clever Einsteinians now see that both legends are
inefficient and that is the reason why the slogan:

GENERAL RELATIVITY WITHOUT SPECIAL RELATIVITY

is so popular in Einsteiniana.

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Post by Pentcho Valev
http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~kostelec/lay/05science.pdf
Einsteiniana's hypnotists discuss in the journal Science: "Special
Relativity Reconsidered. Einstein’s special theory of relativity
reaches into every corner of modern physics. So why are so many trying
so hard to prove it wrong?....Now, however, some physicists wonder
whether special relativity might be subtly - and perhaps beautifully -
wrong....Yet a growing number of physicists are entertaining the
possibility that special relativity is not quite correct....Only a
decade ago, questioning special relativity would have struck many as
heretical, says Robert Bluhm, a theoretical physicist at Colby College
in Waterville, Maine. "When I started working on it, I was kind of
sheepish about it because I didn’t want to be perceived as a
crackpot," Bluhm says. "It seems to really have gone mainstream in the
past few years.".....According to legend, Einstein invented special
relativity to explain the Michelson-Morley experiment....Why are some
physicists so keen to take on Einstein? Answers vary widely."
"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://youtu.be/5PkLLXhONvQ

http://spectator.org/archives/2007/06/21/einsteins-revolution-and-count
Einstein's Revolution, and Counterrevolution
By Tom Bethell
"I recommend the book. Isaacson, the CEO of the Aspen Institute, came
to his task with a strong interest in science, inspired by his father;
he further enlisted the aid of physicists and Einstein
scholars....Special relativity, I fear, will remain a bit mystifying
to those who study his chapter on that conundrum; he never quite
elucidates the sleight-of-hand involved (Banesh Hoffmann, an earlier
biographer, did). But he makes up for it by taking a valiant stab at
explaining general relativity in layman's terms, which is rarely
attempted....SPECIAL RELATIVITY MAKES VERY Peculiar claims. You and I,
next to one another, carry identical rulers and wear exactly
synchronized watches. When I move, I see your ruler shrink and your
watch slow down. You observe no such changes -- called time dilation
and length contraction -- but you do see my ruler shrink and my watch
slow down....Isaacson: "Some may be tempted to ask: Which observer is
'right'? Whose watch shows the 'actual' time elapsed? Which length of
the rod is 'real'?" Mindful of the perplexing history here, he
diplomatically finesses the question ("it is not a question of whether
rods actually shrink or time really slows down..."). At the end of a
new book called It's About Time, the recently retired physics
professor N. David Mermin, who taught relativity at Cornell for
decades, asks the same question. He asks of moving sticks and clocks
that allegedly shrink and lag: "Do these things really happen, or are
they just secondary manifestations... leading to disagreements about
what constitutes a valid measurement?" Mermin's answer is one that you
might consider surprising in a book published exactly 100 years after
Einstein's theory was invented: There is by no means unanimity among
practicing physicists on this question, and one frequently finds
assertions that, for example, moving clocks appear to run slowly when
measured by stationary ones, or that moving sticks appear to shrink.
He's right about that. Here is Arthur Eddington, the famous British
astronomer who led the 1919 eclipse expedition that confirmed
Einstein's prediction about the bending of starlight grazing the sun.
Eddington wrote: "The shortening of the rod is true, but it is not
really true. It is not a statement about reality (the absolute) but it
is a true statement about appearances in our frame of
reference."......Isaac Asimov posed the same question about shrinking
sticks and lagging clocks in 1966: "Which [observer] is really
'right'? The answer is neither and both," he wrote. Many such examples
could be given. There is something unsatisfactory about such a theory,
surely. Experts cannot agree whether its most famous predictions --
that time goes more slowly and lengths contract in things that move
with respect to an observer -- are real or not.....To me, however,
Isaacson's Einstein unexpectedly reinforces a contrarian view that I
have long entertained. It is this: that Einstein was right about
quantum mechanics, and will eventually be vindicated. Furthermore,
sooner or later his much admired notions about relativity will have to
be discarded.....As for general relativity, it seems to give the right
results, but by an extraordinarily complicated method. It is like
Ptolemaic astronomy."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Pentcho Valev]

Unlike quantum gravity theorists, string theorists (the silliest
Einsteinians) fiercely defend Einstein's 1905 false light postulate
and special relativity. They are even able to discover that Einstein's
1905 false light postulate MORALLY follows from the principle of
relativity:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/lorentz-violation-and-deformed-special.html
Lubos Motl: "The second postulate of special relativity morally
follows from the first one once you promote the value of the speed of
light to a law of physics which is what Einstein did. In classical
Newtonian mechanics, it was not a law of physics. The speed of light
according to Newton depended on your speed and the speed of the
source; something that was in tension with Maxwell's equations.
According to Einstein, it must be a constant for all observers.
Einstein preserved everything that was beautiful about the previous
theory and reproduced all of its successful predictions; on the other
hand, his new theory was compatible with the newer experiments by
Morley and Michelson and it ignited the modern 20th century
physics.....Many people outside the particle physics community are
often confused about the relation between special relativity and
general relativity. They imagine that general relativity has rejected
special relativity. Quite on the contrary. General relativity is an
extension of the principles of special relativity in which all
coordinate systems, not just inertial reference frames, are equally
good for our formulation of the physical laws. It is a theory of
curved space where the laws of special relativity are locally
satisfied in all freely falling reference frames. General relativity
without the principles of special relativity inside it is no theory of
relativity."

Pentcho Valev
***@yahoo.com

[Androcles]

Post by Sjouke Burry

Post by Pentcho Valev
Now all Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) know that

Amazing what mental illness can do to a person.

I agree. Look what it has done to you, turned you into a snivelling dork
called burrynulnulfour.

[dlzc]

Post by Pentcho Valev
Now all Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies)
know that Einstein 1905 light postulate is false

No, it is superfluous given Maxwell's equations, which yield a finite
speed of light.

Post by Pentcho Valev
so special relativity is just a dangerous relict of

It has been, except as a stepping stone to current research... just
like Newton is, and of course as a strawman argument for those than
like to simply argue incessantly.

David A. Smith

[Androcles]

Post by Pentcho Valev
Now all Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies)
know that Einstein 1905 light postulate is false

No, it is superfluous given Maxwell's equations, which yield a finite
speed of light.
===============================================

Zombie Smiffy is one of the silliest. Not even the silly zombie Maxwell
with his magic aether realised ALL speeds are relative.

[Stamenin]

Post by dlzc

Post by Pentcho Valev
Now all Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies)
know that Einstein 1905 light postulate is false

No, it is superfluous given Maxwell's equations, which yield a finite
speed of light.
===============================================
Zombie Smiffy is one of the silliest. Not even the silly zombie Maxwell
with his magic aether realised ALL speeds are relative.

I tink that in this discusion are given enough arguments that the
light is the cause of the apparition of Special relativity. But there
is not pointed out that the Lorentz transformation being reciprocally
linked with light has allowed the errant conclusions about the the
relativity of length of time etc.
About the errant General relativity the only cause is the Principle
of the equivalence. To show that this conclusion is corect I give the
folowing mathematical :equesion" considering the Newton laws:
[(first law, a=0)+(sec.law,Fi=ma)+(Fe=-Fi)+(Fg=kM.m/r^2)=(principle
of equivalence).
Because of this replacement we have science which treats the problems
at the earth conditions and science which treats problems in departed
cosmos.

[Uncle Al]

Post by Pentcho Valev
Now all Einsteinians (except for silliest zombies) know that Einstein
1905 light postulate is false so special relativity is just a

[snip 140 lines of crap]

idiot

http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
Special Relativity for yard apes

<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity

Since SR is GR with Big G set to zero,

<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity

idiot

GPS

idiot

Post by Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev

So sad.