Any observed violation of General Relativity must be consistent with 400+ years of prior observations. It must be supported by theory that includes the prior successes of General Relativity at all scales and in all venues. What observables outside General Relativity and inside physical theory exist?

Only one. Consider a left foot. It is invisible to any number of socks or left shoes. A (tight) right shoe will fit anomalously. A left foot is only detected by a right shoe. Physics is fundamentally written to ignore handedness (e.g., Newton and Green's function; Einstein and the Equivalence Principle). Exceptions are inserted as needed (e.g., angular momentum; parity violation). Is this ab initio correct?

1) Do identical chemical composition left and right hands locally vacuum free fall identically? Is the vacuum background observably handed? Nobody has ever looked.

2) Can we calculate the degree of left- or right-handedness of a test mass based upon relative atom positions to chose extreme examples? Yes; mathematician Michel Petitjean's publications.

3) (1) + (2) = Do solid single crystal spheres of space group P3(1)21 quartz (right-handed screw axes) fall identically to solid single crystal spheres of space group P3(2)21 quartz (left-handed screw axes)?

If the answer is yes, General Relativity has no remaining obvious exceptions. If the answer is no, Einstein was wrong and Weitzenböck's teleparallel gravitation is still consistent. The vacuum would have a demonstrated pseudoscalar chiral background that diastereotopically interacts with opposite parity, identical chemical composition mass distributions. One hand of test mass would fall anomalously. 400+ years of prior observations have been socks and therefore default nulls.

http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
Somebody should look

On the Interpretation of the Doppler Effect in Special Relativity Theory

E-Mail: nhamdan2@lycos.com

Einstein [1] presented the relations of the relativistic Doppler effect (RDE) in terms of Lorentz transformations (LT’s). This approach involves only kinematics, not dynamics, and it incurs the kinematic contradictions inherent in LT’s, particularly time dilation. Many physicists have attempted to reconstruct equivalent theories for the RDE relations without using LT’s. The present papers [2,3] does it using only the Lorentz force law and the relativity principle. In these papers where time not delay, we don’t need any kind of preferred frame as well as LT and its time dilation. We need only the intrinsic properties of light, which could be possible the cause of Doppler shift. That means that the light vary its frequency through Doppler relations to observe always that the light velocity remains at constant speed of c . The frequency shifts of photon-wave was derived using the physical law and relativity principle. This way remove the kinematical contradictions in SRT due to RDE and give the motive to build de Broglie theory on dynamical basis.

References

1-A. Einstein, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” Ann. Phys. 17, 891 (1905).

2-N. Hamdan, “On the Interpretation of the Doppler Effect in the Special Relativity(SRT)", Galilean Electrodynamics magazine(2006).

3-N. Hamdan, “Derivation of the Relativistic Doppler Effect from the Lorentz Force", Apeiron, (2005).

Physical Laws and Relativity principle

Since the appearance of Einstein's relativity (SRT) [1], an important question was raised: Is the matter (energy) and its laws the influential power or frame containing matter (energy)? In other words, is the SRT a property characterizing matter (energy) or is it imposed on matter (energy) and its dynamics?

Einstein actually adopted the hypothesis that the frame containing matter is the influential power, and the space-time continuum was formulated and was expressed by LT. This space-time continuum become physical quantities obeying the relativity principle in that time responds to the relativity movement by dilation and space responds to the relativity movement by contraction. Einstein, by LT and its kinematical effects, could build a theory in a brilliant, perfect mathematical language. This theory has become a great, enviable an achievement. However, there are still a few physicians who are skeptical about SRT and they think that this theory has something important which does not go well with logic and general feeling. This theory has liberated us from the ether myth to throw us into the darkness of the space-time continuum.

Matter is no longer free but this continuum restricts its movement. The matter properties are now determined by the continuum properties. The SRT has been presented as the unique solution, yet tens of alternative theories are put forward to replace what is called the SRT. However, the majority of physicians believe that the alternative theories have nothing new to offer because these theories lack the glamour and fame that the SRT has for two main reasons:

1- There is only a subtle difference between the influential power of matter (energy) and the influential power of the frame that containing it.

2- The SRT has been known since its onset as a unifying theory. It unified space and time, matter and energy, and it became the basis of other unifying theories. Therefore, the alternative theories have to concentrate on the shortcomings of the SRT in that this theory took the short out of the space-time properties and adopted this as the sole solution.

The alternative theories should be unifying and should show the shortcomings of the SRT as a non-unifying theory. The SRT has removed the barrier between matter and energy, but it created a new barrier which can not be transcended according to this theory. This barrier separates what is known as non-relativistic from relativistic physics domain. The physical laws appropriate for non-relativistic physics can not transcend this barrier and hence they form classical physics. The physical laws appropriate for relativistic physics can cover the non-relativistic physics domain through the known approximation; and the LT will become Galilean transformation. The more suitable method to start with the laws of classical physics and make them conducive to all particle velocities, i.e. to expand the appropriateness of these laws to deal with relativistic domain. This can not be achieved unless we go back to the invariance of physical laws among inertial frames regardless of the coordinate transformations. In this way, we could form the SRT starting from mechanical base instead of restricting the formation of SRT to electromagnetic base alone.

References

1- A. Einstein, “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies” Ann. Phys. 17, 891 (1905).

2- N. Hamdan, “Newton’s Second Law is a Relativistic law without Einstein’s Relativity”, Galilean Electrodynamics (2005).

3- N. Hamdan, “Abandoning the Ideas of Length Contraction and time dilation”, Galilean Electrodynamics (2003).

4- N. Hamdan, “On the Invariance of Maxwell's Field Equations under Lorentz Transformations", Galilean Electrodynamics (2006).

As an alternative to violations, has anyone ever considered that the Lorentz transformation may not be a complete description? If you look at Einstein's equation for energy, E^2 = (pc)^2 + Eo^2, it looks like the Pythagorean theorem. This suggests that a more encompassing theory may involve complex quantities. The complex equation for energy ~E = pc + i*Eo, includes Einstein's equation as magnitude, but also includes a phase component. The real part is the one that describes the motion of particles. A particle of light energy has no rest energy (no imaginary component) and has electric and magnetic waves that are in phase. This implies that rest energy (the imaginary component) is made of electric and magnetic waves that are 90 degrees out of phase. At some fundamental level matter must be 90 degree out of phase electric and magnetic waves. If everything is made of electric and magnetic waves it shouldn't be too hard to find a unifying theory for all forces.

i strongly believe that the super string theory is complimentary to einstein's theory of relativity. however, care must be taken in harmornising these two seaminglg powerful theories to avoid killing the growth of science as a unifying theory is for all practical porposes immpossible

i strongly believe that the super string theory is complimentary to einstein's theory of relativity. however, care must be taken in harmornising these two seemingly powerful theories to avoid killing the growth of science as a unifying theory is for all practical porposes immpossible

The following three quotations can help anyone trying to test Einstein's relativity. The first and the second belong to important educators; the third to a heretic who died a few years ago.

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. "

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
" Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! "

Pentcho Valev

EINSTEIN'S SIN

The experiment of Michelson-Morley should have led to two competing interpretations:

1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle model of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, 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. This interpretation is simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.) can be introduced.

2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory - without them the falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would be obvious.

The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the second was adopted. That was the beginning of a wrong science of course but by no means a sin. The sin started when Einstein implicitly introduced the true c'=c+v interpretation, thereby obtaining correct results (e.g. the frequency shift factor), and conserved the false principle of constancy of the speed of light plus appended miracles, thereby destroying the rationality of generations of scientists.

In 1911 Einstein showed that in a gravitational field the speed of light is variable and advanced the formula

c' = c(1 + V/c^2)

where V is the gravitational potential. One can apply the equivalence principle as shown in

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4

Note that V=gh=cv. Substitute this in Einstein's formula and you obtain c'=c+v.

Pentcho Valev

LOGICAL VERIFICATION OF THEORIES

Popper's idea that theories should be tested only through experimental verification of final results is misleading. A theory could start with a false premise (e.g. "Entropy is a state function" or "The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source"), then devastate any rationality in science but at some stage abandon for a while the false premise and appropriate conclusions deduced from true premises. Then logical verification of the deductive chains inside the theory is much more important and in the process the crucial sanitary procedure should be reductio ad absurdum - something forgotten in the era of Postscientism. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47 (solution on p. 54), in

http://www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf

Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which, released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick remains trapped between the pawl and the wall. If the person who tests the theory can see the mark, he/she can also see the erection of the pawl and then the trapped stick as well. How long is the trapped stick? We have reductio ad absurdum - there are two incompatible answers. In a normal science the theory should be rejected.

Pentcho Valev

HOW EINSTEIN SHOULD HAVE RESOLVED THE TWIN PARADOX

A. Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 23:
"To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of the circular [rotating] disc, and the other on the edge of the disc....it follows that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc..."

Einstein should have placed the first, non-rotating, clock not at the center but outside of the disc, close to the rotating periphery, in order to be able to compare its reading with the readings of numerous clocks fixed on the rotating periphery and passing the first clock consecutively. Also, he should have reduced to zero the gravitational potential experienced by rotating clocks by increasing the diameter of the disc and keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant. So Einstein would have obtained the standard model where an inertial clock (the first, non-rotating, clock) consecutively passes two or more inertial clocks (fixed on the periphery of the rotating disc) and proves SLOWER than them. In the end, the clock at rest proves BOTH SLOWER AND FASTER than rotating clocks. This should have made Einstein abandon his theory. Unfortunately he did not know what REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM was.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

Einstein is correct, but he has been misunderstood by a lot of people; and allowances must be made for minor mistakes.

In the scheme of Einstein it is Special Relativity -> General Relativity -> Unified Field Theory.

Where the next theory in the chain explains more than the previous theory, e.g. General Relativity explains more phenomenon that Special Relativity. So, that Unified Field Theory explains more than General Relativity.

What happened in the 1920/30s was a clash between Bohr and Einstein, which is often summarised as Einstein famously saying "God does not play dice with the universe." The physicists were persuaded to follow Bohr's approach instead of Einstein's. This meant abandonment of the majority to the work that had been done on Unified Field Theory.

Without understanding the Unified Field Theory it is not possible to have a proper understanding of many of the issues in Einstein's relativity theories. Hence why the Physics community does not have a proper understanding of these theories.

The real issue is why does the Physics Community want an incomplete understanding of Einstein's theories, and why does it no longer teach Einstein's Unified Field Theory; because contrary to the myth that many people state that there is no unified field theory, there IS. And it exists in the scientific records. I have been involved in trying to get some of this information onto the web, and consider it a type of conspiracy in the sense that no one in supposed authority in the physics community is taking up the issue of the unified field theory, and instead pretend it does not exist.

Regards Roger Anderton
www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk

TESTING TIMES NOT ONLY FOR EINSTEIN'S THEORY

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?"

So in the era of Postscientism the old "Veni, Vidi, Vici" has been replaced by "Introduce absurdity, Destroy rationality, Become divinity". However 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

The pattern was the same as in Einstein's case - the miracle (equal efficiencies) had been initially deduced from Carnot's false premise (Heat is an indestructible substance and cannot be converted into work) and had converted Clausius and Kelvin into divinities:

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev4.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm

However this unfortunate beginning converted the new science (thermodynamics) into an incomparable obscurity:

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."

Note that the "dismal swamp of obscurity" is in fact basic science that freshmen in Universities should learn by rote very diligently.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

THE CONCLUSION EINSTEIN DID NOT DRAW

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES
By A. Einstein June 30, 1905
"It is known that Maxwell's electrodynamics--as usually understood at the present time--when applied to moving bodies, leads to asymmetries which do not appear to be inherent in the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion. For if the magnet is in motion and the conductor at rest, there arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet an electric field with a certain definite energy, producing a current at the places where parts of the conductor are situated. But if the magnet is stationary and the conductor in motion, no electric field arises in the neighbourhood of the magnet. In the conductor, however, we find an electromotive force, to which in itself there is no corresponding energy, but which gives rise--assuming equality of relative motion in the two cases discussed--to electric currents of the same path and intensity as those produced by the electric forces in the former case. Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the ``light medium,'' suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest. They suggest rather that, as has already been shown to the first order of small quantities, the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good."

Examples of this sort also suggest that the speed of light cannot be determined by the elastic properties of the ether, that is, independently of the speed of the light source, and therefore the only reasonable conclusion is: In so far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle model of light (rediscovered by Einstein himself) is correct. The speed of light is c'=c+v, where c is the relative speed of the photons and their source and v is the relative speed of the source and the observer.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

A RECIPE FOR RESTORING RATIONALITY IN SCIENCE

The present crisis in science and science education (expressions like "terminal decline" and "farewell to physics" have become commonplace) has many and various sources and is probably irreversible. Still, in a desperate counterattack, two fundamental falsehoods should be dealt with immediately:

1. The false conclusion of Clausius according to which all heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same maximal efficiency should be replaced with its negation: Heat engines working between the same two temperatures could have different maximal efficiencies. Then all possible deductions should be made.

2. Einstein's false second postulate according to which the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source should be replaced with its negation: The speed of light does depend on the speed of the light source. Then all possible deductions should be made.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

LOGIC AND MIRACLES

Science can only be attractive through its LOGIC. If you replace logic with miracles (e.g. "All heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same maximal efficiency" or "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") there will be some temporary reinforcement akin to drug stimulation but in the end the organism dies irreversibly. There may be variations of course. For instance, physicists proclaimed the death of classical thermodynamics long time ago but since professors of physical chemistry still get money for juggling with the Gibbs free energy this science is in a semi-alive (vampiric) state:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/ :

"In the eyes of many modern physicists, the theory has acquired a somewhat dubious status. They regard classical thermodynamics as a relic from a bygone era... Indeed, the view that thermodynamics is obsolete is so common that many physicists use the phrase "Second Law of Thermodynamics" to denote some counterpart of this law in the kinetic theory of gases or in statistical mechanics."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

DID EINSTEIN PREDICT THE DEATH OF PHYSICS?

The following two quotations are extremely important:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."

Einstein at the end of his career:
"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."

So Einstein knew what had happened. Perhaps at that time (1954) the death of physics was still reversible. Now there is no hope. This civilization seems to be suicidal.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

MORE ABOUT EINSTEIN PREDICTING THE DEATH OF PHYSICS

At the end of his life (in 1954) Albert Einstein made a prophecy:

"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."

Einstein had known all along that the field concept of light (light moves in the form of continuous wave structures) was wrong and the photon concept (light moves in the form of discontinuous particles) was correct. (He had rediscovered the latter concept in 1905.) So the prophecy was a sudden honesty (such things happen at the end of one's life) rather than a sudden insight. Yet the end of the prophecy is strange: why "the rest of modern physics"?

Einstein was a great psychologist and understood quite well the role his theory had played in the destruction of human rationality. A student forced to repeat wisdoms equivalent to "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" will never be able to deal properly with the field concept of light, the particle concept of light and any other concept of anything. A science initially abandoned by intelligent students then by all students: that was the hidden meaning in "the rest of modern physics".

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

RELATIVITY AND SELF-DESTRUCTION

Photons move in a gravitational field and either undergo acceleration (e.g. their speed becomes c'>c=300000km/s) or do not undergo acceleration (that is, their speed remains c=300000km/s). If they undergo acceleration the frequency shift detected by the receiver is due to the variable speed of light, in accordance with the formula c'=Lf', where L is wavelength and f is frequency. If the photons do not undergo acceleration the frequency shift detected by the receiver is due to gravitational time dilation and variable wavelength, in accordance with the formula c=L'f'. It is easy to see that c'=Lf' and c=L'f' are the only possibilities. Roughly speaking, either variable speed of light and no gravitational time dilation, or gravitational time dilation and constant speed of light.

Initially Einstein chose c'=Lf':
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."

However later Einstein had to camouflage the fact that the frequency shift is due to variable speed of light and introduced gravitational time dilation - a concept extremely dangerous for human rationality. Two identical clocks in identical conditions (identical gravitational fields) allegedly have different rates. Rationality is immediately destroyed and the victim starts worshipping both the miracle and its creator.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

MASS OF THE PHOTON AND EINSTEIN'S SECOND POSTULATE

http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Whatif%20EinsteinLevyLeblond.pdf :
Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond "What if Einstein had not been there? A Gedankenexperiment in Science History":
"In modern terms, think of the situation if the photon finally had a nonzero mass, however small; light would not travel with the invariant velocity..."

Wolfgang Pauli (1954) "Matter". In: Muschel, H. (ed.), Man’s Right to Knowledge. New York:
"Matter has always been and will always be one of the main objects of physics.....even light has become matter now, due to Einstein’s discoveries. It has mass and also weight; it is not different from ordinary matter."

Note that, as far as Einstein's second postulate is concerned, "Does the photon have a mass?" can be replaced by "Do photons accelerate in a gravitational field?".

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

My father has found a new unified field theory years back. But unfortunately he could not bring it to light as there is nobody to help. Not only this he has found so many theories some 30-40 years back which are being published by others now. Is there any way he can bring it to light?

THE MOST DANGEROUS QUESTIONS IN PHYSICS

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,228411,00.html :
"So was Newton right? Light is a particle, not a wave? The answer is yes and no. Light acts like a wave when you do an experiment looking for a wave property (like scattering through a pinhole). It behaves like a particle if you test for a particle property (like colliding with electrons)."

Light acts like what in a gravitational field when it accelerates and its speed becomes greater than c=300000km/s? Light acts like what when you apply the equivalence principle and find that, if it accelerates in a gravitational field, its speed in the absence of a gravitational field is c'=c+v, where c is the initial speed of the photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer? Light acts like what when c'=c+v satisfies the negative result of Michelson-Morley experiment whereas c'=c (Einstein's postulate of constancy of the speed of light) can only be satisfactory if you additionally introduce miracles (time dilation, length contration etc.)?

These have been the most dangerous questions in physics for the last 100 years.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

BIG BROTHER'S WORLD AND EINSTEIN'S WORLD

In Big Brother's world truth is replaced by falsity but the identification and rejection of false statements remain essential: if 2+2=5 is declared true, 2+2=4 automatically becomes false and is rejected.

In Einstein's world true and false statements coexist in "theories". So in Einstein's theory the speed of light is both invariable and variable. "Invariable" is false, "variable" is true but this distinction does not matter. What matters is the fact that Einstein's theory "works" in the sense that millions of people make their living by teaching it, developing it, confirming it experimentally etc. It is unthinkable to disturb the integrity of the theory and threaten all those people by identifying, let alone rejecting, false statements.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

EINSTEINIANS WILL TRY TO SAVE PHYSICS

So far Einsteinians have extracted billions from two incompatible principles: the principle of INVARIABILITY of the speed of light (the speed of photons is c=300000km/s, independent of gravitational fields or of the speed of the light source) and the principle of VARIABILITY of the speed of light (the speed of photons varies in a gravitational field or with the speed of the light source and can become greater than c=300000km/s). The first principle is false but produces breathtaking miracles (time dilation, length contraction, the fabric of spacetime etc.), the second is true and can give correct predictions (e.g. the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2, where V is the gravitational potential). The combination of the two principles destroys human rationality and so makes rational criticism impossible - the supremacy of the theory of relativity looks eternal.

The problem is that students (especially intelligent ones, e.g. in UK) do not wish to study absurdities anymore and physics is simply dying (departments are being closed etc.). So Einsteinians will try to save physics by abandoning the source of money Einstein created for them. Too late perhaps - some say death of science is irreversible:

http://www.politics.co.uk/press-releases/education/higher-education/higher-education/ucu-report-reveals-that-latest-physics-closure-part-decline-in-uk-science-$458709.htm

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

THE PRINCIPLE OF VARIABILITY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT

Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2), where c' is the speed of light as measured by an observer, c=300000km/s is the initial speed of light relative to the light source and V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where light is emitted, proves the validity of the following principle:

Since the probability that V=0 is virtually zero, light NEVER travels in space with speed c=300000km/s; its speed is either higher (V>0) or lower (0>V) than that value.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

EDUCATION IN EINSTEIN'S WORLD

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/publications/sabroad2007/courses/Physics%20and%20astronomy/12930
Courses at Sussex
Physics and astronomy
Relativity
Level 1
6 credits in summer
Teaching method: Lecture, Workshop
Assessment modes: Unseen Examination, Coursework
Topics include: historical perspective. Inertial frames and transformations. Newton’s laws in inertial frames. MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT - OBSERVED CONSTANCY OF SPEED OF LIGHT. Einstein’s assumptions. Lorentz-Einstein transformations; Minkowski diagrams; Lorentz contraction; time dilation. Transformation of velocities - stellar aberration. Variation of mass, mass-energy equivalence. Lorentz transformations for momentum and energy.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html
Stephen Hawking: "But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from."

Elsewhere Einstein's educators teach:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light :
"It should be noted that the Michelson-Morley experiment said little about the speed of light relative to the light’s source and observer’s velocity, as both the source and observer were travelling at the same velocity together in space. Indeed, if light is understood to be due to quantum photon “bullets”, then the Michelson-Morley result is exactly as expected."

Amazingly, this type of education has proved extremely efficient - no relativist would see anything disturbing when comparing the three teachings.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY: VIOLATIONS AND AXIOMS

Any Einsteinian would tell you violations of the theory entail reconsideration of the axioms: since Einstein's deductions are rigorous, false conclusions would imply false axioms. On the other hand, any breathtaking development of Einstein's relativity can only be triggered by violations and Einsteinians do wish to see that development - the present stalemate is disturbing even for them. The dilemma has an elegant solution: there are numerous violations indeed so the breathtaking development is imminent but those violations are tiny, so tiny that reconsideration of the axioms is not necessary:

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/tips/page/normal/4519.html :
"Alan Kostelecky, Distinguished Professor of Physics at Indiana University Bloomington, has been elected a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science "for seminal contributions to relativity and spacetime symmetries, and for the development of a profound and comprehensive theoretical framework for relativity violations," according to a statement from AAAS....he realized that tiny violations of Einstein's relativity could be an experimental signal of the long-sought underlying theory unifying all known forces and particles....Kostelecky's theory has inspired many searches for relativity violations around the world, and more are being performed..... "The ongoing search for relativity violations is an impressive interdisciplinary effort," Kostelecky said."

Einsteinians reassure themselves in the following way. Since the violations are tiny, axioms are just a little false and therefore virtually true. The reassurance is quite explicit sometimes:

http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-04/features/testing-the-limits/?page=1
"Testing the Limit of Einstein’s Theories....IS THE SPEED OF LIGHT CONSTANT?....If you compare a lot of high-energy photons with a lot of relatively low-energy ones, you should find that on average, after a billion-year race, the high-energy ones reach GLAST’s detector sooner—by about a millisecond. He and other quantum gravity theorists are pretty excited by that possibility, which just goes to show what they’re up against."

Einsteinians know Einstein would disagree about "little falsehood". Once he said: "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." However the solution Einsteinians have found is both elegant and all-embracing: Violations are tiny, axioms are just a little false, Einstein is just a little wrong.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

EINSTEINIANS RETURN TO NEWTON

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/9910/9910325.pdf
Gravitation Without Curved Space-time
Kris Krogh
p.12: "The gravitational frequency shift in Einstein’s 1911 variable-speed-of-light theory was v=v0(1+phi/c^2) which agrees with Eq. (13) to the first order. But there was no effect on lambda, or the dimensions of measuring rods, corresponding to Eq. (14). Consequently, the speed of light in a gravitational potential was c=c0(1+phi/c^2)."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

HOW SCIENCE SHOULD BE WRITTEN

http://www.amazon.com/Principle-Relativity-Dover-Books-Physics/dp/0486600815
The Principle of Relativity (Dover Books on Physics) (Paperback) by Albert Einstein, Frances A. Davis....How science should be written...Reviewer: Professor Joseph L. McCauley (Austria+Texas):

"The constancy of the speed of light follows from the requirement that there is no special reference frame."

This absurdity was first introduced by Albert Einstein in Chaper 7 in his "Relativity". Scientists immediately realized that was the way science should be written and have written so for a century. The result is simple: No science left.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

HOW EINSTEINIANS EARN THEIR LIVING

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
"In Faster Than the Speed of Light, Magueijo reveals the short, brilliant history of his possibly groundbreaking speculation--VSL, or Variable Light Speed. This notion--that the speed of light changed as the universe expanded after the Big Bang--contradicts no less prominent a figure than Albert Einstein. Because of this, Magueijo has suffered more than a few slings and arrows from hidebound, jealous, or perplexed colleagues. But the young scientist persisted, found a few important allies, and finally managed to shake up the establishment enough to get the attention he merited and craved."

Einstein defined the variability of the speed of light as the dependence of the speed of photons on the speed of the light source. The application of the equivalence principle converts this into the statement that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light "varies with position", as Einstein himself put it in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" (but did not say that varying with position in a gravitational field is equivalent to depending on the speed of the light source in the absence of a gravitational field).

It is easy to see that Magueijo's Variable Light Speed in fact confirms Einstein's second postulate - the principle of INVARIABILITY of the speed of light. One would be unable to claim that light was faster in the past and is slower now if its speed were not invariable relative to the speed of the light source or in a gravitational field. Then why should Magueijo be presented as the Martyr contradicting Divine Albert and persecuted by jealous colleagues? Money, money, money......

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

BRINGING EINSTEIN'S SECOND POSTULATE TO PERFECTION

In 1905 Einstein postulates 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" but fails to explain whether this "definite velocity c" would remain "definite velocity c" when the observer and the place of emission are at different gravitational potentials. Einstein's explanation comes later, in 1911, and in 2007 it is time to bring the original 1905 postulate to perfection:

If the relative speed of the observer and the emitting body is zero, light is always propagated in empty space with a variable speed c'=c(1+V/c^2) where c is the initial speed of photons relaive to the emitting body and V is the gravitational potential relative to the place of emission. Equivalently, if the observer and the place of emission are at the same gravitational potential, light is always propagated in empty space with a variable speed c'=c+v where v is the relative speed of the observer and the emitting body.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

TIME DILATION AND EINSTEIN'S FREEDOM TO CHOOSE

The miraculous corollary of Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light - time dilation - implies that, if a single clock belonging to the inertial system K consecutively meets clocks belonging to the inertial system K', and if at every meeting the two readings are compared, the single clock in K turns out to run SLOWER than clocks in K'. That is, the difference in reading between clocks in K' and the single clock in K gradually increases with the number of meetings. Yet in Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" Einstein says the opposite: the clock in the system at rest K runs FASTER than clocks placed on the periphery of the rotating disc K'. True, the periphery of the rotating disc K' is not an inertial system but does that justify the transition from SLOWER to FASTER? Moreover, by increasing the diameter of the disc and keeping the linear speed of the periphery constant one can convert the periphery of the disc into an INERTIAL system: clocks on the periphery would experience no gravitational field while meeting consecutively the single clock from K. For such cases all textbooks say Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light predicts that the difference in reading between clocks in K' and the single clock in K must gradually INCREASE with the number of meetings. Then why does Einstein say the opposite in Chapter 23 in his "Relativity"?

The radical solution to the problem involves abandoning Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light. This solution is too dangerous. Einstein once said: "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."

There is also a partial solution: The single clock in the system at rest K runs both SLOWER and FASTER than clocks in the system K' and Einstein was free to choose. He chose FASTER.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

TESTS FATAL FOR SPECIAL RELATIVITY

Recently a relativist explained the triumph of special relativity over all tests

Tom Roberts: "Experimental Tests of Special Relativity"
http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS_Site_03/Lectures/Colloquium/061213Roberts/vf001.htm

but failed to refer to the principle of VARIABILITY of the speed of light brilliantly discussed by him on the forum sci.physics.relativity:

Pentcho Valev asked on sci.physics.relativity: CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD? Tom Roberts answered: "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)." Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

The variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field and, equivalently, for an accelerated observer, was introduced by Albert Einstein and then tested and confirmed by his disciples, although in a somewhat subdued manner:

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]....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."

The question is: The variable speed of light that the accelerated observer measures obeys an equation equivalent to c'=c(1+V/c^2) and this equivalent equation is......??? Relativists know the equivalent equation is c'=c+v where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. They also know Einstein's prophecy: "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."

Relativists used to rely on the fact that the observer is refered to as ACCELERATED; this gave them the opportunity to raise arguments of the sort: Since the observer is accelerated, this has nothing to do with special relativity. Now relativists know those arguments were totally irrelevant. It is time to remember another prophecy of Einstein's: "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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

VERY SPECIAL RELATIVITY AND VERY LITTLE FALSEHOOD

Relativists have always claimed Divine Albert rigorously deduced his special relativity from two postulates and countless experimental confirmations of the theory are in fact confirmations of the truth of the postulates. Yet lately relativists seem to have discovered countless violations of the theory but somehow forget to relate them to the problem of the truth or falsehood of the postulates. So Nobel prizewinners have found some Lorentz violation and have dared (those that are not Nobel prizewinners would never dare) to challenge Divine Albert and "rewrite the rules of Einstein's special theory of relativity":

http://space.newscientist.com/article/mg19325871.400
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006PhRvL..97b1601C

Perhaps in Very Special Relativity Einstein's false second postulate will prove Very Little False. Perhaps not. Who knows.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

REFRACTION, DIFFRACTION: NEWTON WAS RIGHT

According to Newton's model of discontinuous (corpuscular) light structure, in the vicinity of water light particles receive more attraction than in air. Therefore, BEFORE the particles reach the surface of the water, their trajectory starts curving; the refraction is due to this curvature. According to the model of continuous light structure (electromagnetic field), AFTER entering the water waves move slower and this delay explains the refraction.

Clearly the curvature predicted by Newton makes the "continuous" explanation at least redundant: since the change in direction starts BEFORE the photons reaching the water surface, at the moment of penetration the refraction is already determined and subsequent events, including the change of the speed of light in water, are not very important.

Paradoxically, it is this change of the speed of light in water that definitively converted 19th century physicists to the "continuous" concept. Leon Foucault, 1850: "Ces resultats accusent une vitesse de la lumiere moindre dans l'eau que dans l'air, et confirment pleinement, selon les vues de M. Arago, les indications de la theorie des ondulations."

Einstein confirmed both the discontinuous nature of light and the curvature in the vicinity of bodies but never abandoned the model of continuous light structure which proved too profitable. Still at the end of his life he said: "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."

In explaining diffraction textbooks recognize "a slight bending of the wave front at the edges". However "at the edges" could mean either "near the edges" or "as it grazes the edges". "Near the edges" implies that bodies can attract photons; in fact, that was the essence of Newton's explanation of diffraction. In Opticks he wrote: "Do not bodies act upon light at a distance, and by their action bend its rays; and is not this action strongest at a least distance?".

If said attraction is really the cause of diffraction, as Newton believed, the theory describing light in terms of a continuous field is false. Ironically, compelled by observations, the famous defender of the wave theory of light Fresnel abandoned "as it grazes the edges" and adopted "near the edges", thereby virtually confirming Newton's idea. He wrote: "....quelques reflexions et observations nouvelles m'ont fait douter de l'exactitude d'une hypothese dont j'etais parti pour calculer mes formules: que le centre d'ondulation de la lumiere reflechie etait toujours au bord meme du corps, ou, ce qui revient au meme, que la lumiere inflechie ne pouvait provenir que des rayons qui ont touche sa surface.....la lumiere inflechie ne provient pas seulement de celle qui a rase les biseaux, mais encore des rayons qui en sont passes a des distances sensibles."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

EINSTEIN AND THE ONLY POSSIBLE WORLD

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Stephen Hawking: "Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But A FAMOUS EXPERIMENT, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, SHOWED THAT LIGHT ALWAYS TRAVELLED AT A SPEED OF ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SIX THOUSAND MILES A SECOND, no matter where it came from."

In the end the relativity cult announced that the Michelson-Morley experiment CONFIRMS the light postulate and subjects believed it. Now this is THE TRUTH. The only possible truth in the only possible world. There is NO WORLD WHERE "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE".

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; indeed, he concluded, the variable speed of light can be used as a gravitational potential."

In the end the relativity cult announced that that the variable frequency in the presence of a gravitational field is due to whatever you like but BY NO MEANS TO THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT and subjects believed it. Now this is THE TRUTH. The only possible truth in the only possible world. There is NO WORLD WHERE THE VARIABLE FREQUENCY IS DUE TO THE VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT.

http://web.mit.edu/c_hill/www/muons_paper.pdf "In this experiment, we measure two of the basic properties of the muon, namely, its mean lifetime and mass in its rest frame. We measure the decay curve of cosmic-ray muons that have come to rest in a plastic scintillator by looking for electrons produced in their decay."

In the end the relativity cult announced that, as muons undergo a terrible crash during which their speed changes from about 300000km/s to zero, they are AT REST, and subjects believed it. Now this is THE TRUTH. The only possible truth in the only possible world. There is NO WORLD WHERE THE EXTREMELY SHORT LIFETIME IS DUE TO THE TERRIBLE CRASH.

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984": "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?"

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

EINSTEIN AND THE END OF SCIENCE

Is there any relation between the following texts?

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein: "I consider it entirely possible that physics cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air, including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of contemporary physics."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"

http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,2084784,00.html
Harry Kroto "The wrecking of British science": "Thirty per cent of physics departments have either been closed or merged in the past five years.....Do I think there is any hope for UK? I am really not sure."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

There is also a partial solution: The single clock in the system at rest K runs both SLOWER and FASTER than clocks in the system K' and Einstein was free to choose. He chose FASTER.