Pentcho valev 2011-09-03 10:19:42
Some time ago Lee Smolin asked “Where are the Einsteinians?” and
revealed the ultimate cause for his concern:
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.”
The question “Where are the Einsteinians?” is getting more and more
relevant. A search in Internet would show that important Einsteinians
have deleted dithyrambic texts from their websites, constantly hint at
“small relativity violations”, “variable speed of light”, “emission
theory of light”, “signals faster than light” etc. and are apparently
waiting for something. So another relevant question is: Waiting for
what? Perhaps important Einsteinians have realised that the old
principle “Salaries for worshipping Einstein” will soon be revoked.
Logically (Einsteinians are great logicians), the new principle will
be “Salaries for refuting Einstein”. And Einsteinians are waiting for
Nuny 2011-09-03 10:19:44
Sooooooo, you’ve been b******* all this time because you haven’t
been making money because you don’t buy Relativity?
Do you expect back pay for all that time, or what?
Mark L. Fergerson
H. wabnig 2011-09-03 10:19:46
On 3 Apr 2007 22:57:16 -0700, “Pentcho Valev”
We were waiting for you and Androcles to demonstrate
Pentcho valev 2011-09-03 10:19:48
Ask your masters:
Don’t try to understand Master Butterfield’s text; just learn it by
H. wabnig 2011-09-03 10:19:56
On 4 Apr 2007 01:15:06 -0700, “Pentcho Valev”
Lissen, Pentcho, I said
Even an ape can type a text, a PDF, or a Pentcho Valev posting.
Pentcho valev 2011-09-03 10:19:58
Master Jeremy Butterfield’s text?!?! Something’s going on in
Einstein’s criminal cult.
Josefmatz 2011-09-03 10:20:00
Obviously Einsteins concern was about instant spooky effects since they are
in his original thoughts.
Instant spooky quantum effects are well approved in many labs and many
Even Richard Feynman said once: Light can go every velocity you just need to
hinder it go
normal allowed paths.
Nimtz (Uni cologne) , Haibel (now Max Planck institute berlin) and W*** (i
measured superluminal effects with superluminal signal transfer.
Haibels measurement at Uni cologne demonstrating FTL in the vacuum gap
prisms in the case of frustated total reflection, a tunneling effect.
The explanation is macroscopic electrodynamics. Normal macroscopic
can be used to explain the Nimtz (Haibels) experiments.
Now Relativity is not used in QM fully. The part used seems to be best
proven. But some
parts disagree with QM especially spooky effects. Furthermore it was not
to integrate relativity and QM but also relativity and macroscopic
in clinch with each other since relativity is a pure vaccum theory not
pointing to the phenomena
for example in a simple glas block (light goes frequency dependent slower).
Now anomalous dispersion is one case where superluminal effects can ( this
means not must ! )
occur. Here already relativity is unable to integrate normal refraction and
of course also not
the superluminal cases. Now in the vacuum gap between two prisms
and their superposition are responsible for almost instant signal hopping in
So the problem between relativity and QM is mainly the same as between
Macro – Electrodynamic
and Relativity. The theory of tunneling fluxes is nowhere developed in
literature that means
macroscopic electrodynamics is abandonened in literature where it becomes
The teachers begin with maybe in universities since the strong theory
neglects all publishings
and anybody who says that he measured FTL was made mouth dead in the past,
or you measure wrong. FTL in vacuum now is dangerous to servere relativists.
Now i can tell you that macroscopic electrodynamics delivers FTL in
experiments in vacuum. Now inhomogeneous waves in vacuum require an index
for the surrounding matter (the two prisms). Without index or as i say it
microscopic theory no inhomogene waves and therefore no FTL exits. But
refraction index exists
and has usually a real and an imaginary part. Because it exists also
inhomgene waves exist
and therefore FTL even in vacuum and in accordance with experiments.
So a pure microscopic theory neglecting the existance of complex refraction
index can not deliver
FTL and is an inclompete theory. Pure vacuum physics where atoms are
embedded does not
decribe reality. FTL exists.
This does not mean that all relativity principles are wrong, but existance
of FTL is the end of GR
in the present form as i see it. And FTL is causal but not compatible with
SR – causality. So i think
the main point is that the true role of time is an other than viewed upon in
todays physics lectures
upon SRT. Time dilation must be explained by other principles working than
So i think its on the turn to discuss relativity theories with of light at
So there are indications that not only light can go FTL but also electrons
can tunnel FTL in
forbidden regions (diode gaps). If this is true the Schr dinger equation
does also deliver
such effects at step potentials in a rest frame. Then in fact FTL is a very
of wave equations with step index or step potentials. The only cause why not
in literature because of the relativistic postulate that such does not
So my opinion is that it would be fine if the relativists would not deny FTL
but rather would
open their eyes how relativity must be adjusted because one of its dogmas is
in all experiments.
Struggle and fight and exchange of ideas on high niveau would be better than
just hinder such work.
The critics have the measurements on their side but in fact not the right
The hard relativists are wrong per se. We should hope that these are dying
Mombu 2011-09-03 10:20:02
Yes, cretins like you and Pancho are dying out. Of Alzheimer.
Josefmatz 2011-09-03 10:20:04
Many of them already calmed down a little. If you are a radikal GR –
believer like the moderators
of sci.physics.research: The radikal muslims have also a wrong theory and do
not let count careful
other meanings. And since sci.physicis.research has defined FTL not to
exist, reasearchers who
work in this field can not even post anything nor can they point to errors
resulting from it.
In the picture of the radikal muslims this means terror and war.
Its undoubtedly wrong what you defend !
Hope you find the right view.
Mombu 2011-09-03 10:20:06
rabid antirelativists like you and Pancho who ignore all experimental
evidence and keep repeating the same manthra are mirror images of the
radical muslims, I agree.
Josefmatz 2011-09-03 10:20:16
No i am trying to understand things deeper than where the blind GRists stop.
And GR wrong means a lot !
It means that the photons have a dynamic mass according to
m c**2 = hbar w
and it means that the universe is infinite (in room) and that everywhere in
this infinity is the same
present as you feel it.
Yes, relativity can be replaced and all so called relativity effects also
Further radical breaks: Black holes do not exist. There is no curvature of
room by mass.
There are no gravity waves. All this can be deduced by logic and Haibels
with the double prisms which can be understood up to the finest details with
Einsteins GR is already dead and what i told you here is the only logic
alternative, fully in
agreement with all known experimental results.
Galileo was a grat scientist who was not recognized. Eintein was also a
great scientist but his GR
sorry but it is so – is (fully) wrong.
And spooky effects and FTL exists.
Mombu 2011-09-03 10:20:18
Just because you don’t (and never will) understand relativity , it
doesn’t mean that it is wrong. It simply means that …you are an
imbecile. What I don’t understand is why do you feel the need to
reaffirm your imbecility daily? We are convinced, you can stop posting
Stamenin 2011-09-03 10:20:20
I am convist that the big differences between the two parts of the
discutants are the following three capital mistakes done by Einstein.
Eliminate them and will be resoived the conflict.
EINSTEIN,S THREE CAPITAL MISTAKES
Mr. Retnec in a topic has written: “Everything which we accept as true
must be consistent with all observations, and it must be
mathematically viable. Present teachings do not always meet this
requirement. The world is entitled to a higher standard of workmanship
from those it has granted world class status”.
This is a very correct assessment and I’d like to use it as a
reference. In this direction I’d like to mention only three Einstein’s
modifications done in physics that do not respect these very
consistent and real assessment.
1) Einstein replaced the Galilei’s transformation with the Lorentz
2) He changed the Galilei’s definition of the principle of the
relativity with his general principle of the relativity. This
obviously is done with the intention to be put in accordance with the
principle of the equivalence.
3) He emitted the principle of the equivalence of the inertial force
with the gravitational field.
Nobody does observations against these unreasonable modifications, but
they try to combat his theory of the relativity with the consequences
that appear in the far cosmic phenomena that are impossible to be
I have done observations in mine previous topics but nobody was in
accord with them and nobody has done any contrary argumentations. This
is a strange situation.
I believe that everybody likes to promote his personal theory with
partial remedies of Einstein’s theory trying to do an impossible thing
because of the following:
1) The Lorentz transformation is not an approximation done to the
Galilei’s transformation, but is an alternative solution, which do not
respect the condition, that this transformation must be mathematically
2) Einstein changed the definition of the principle of the relativity
with the definition in his general relativity. These two definitions
are contradictory. The Galilei’s definition says that the laws of the
mechanics are identical only in the inertial coordinate systems, but
the Einstein’s definition says that the laws of the “nature” are
identical and in an accelerated coordinate system. By this we have a
lot of additional paradoxes and hoaxes.
Obviously this modification is done with the aim to be put in accord
his new definition of the principle of the relativity with the
principle of the equivalence of the inertial forces with the
3) The principle of the equivalence of the inertial forces with the
gravitational field is emitted by a supposition that a chest placed in
a large portion of the space where do not exist gravitational forces,
shall be in a state of inertial motion according to the first law of
the mechanics. But when an imaginary being pulls the chest, a man in
the chest shall feel an inertial force which is similar with the force
which we feel in a room at the earth as a result of the earth
To conclude that the principle of the equivalence is a correct
assumption is an enormous misjudgment because this similarity appears
as a result of the property of the two forces to act upon every atom
of the mass. On the other hand I have said in a previous topic that we
being in a train in accelerated motion we can’t say that the earth is
in an accelerated motion and the train is staying, because it is not
true. The train experiences the accelerate forces and not the earth.
So we can’t use at all a coordinate system rigidly attached to a body,
which is in a state of accelerated motion.
If these three modifications done by Einstein could be properly
by physicists, the Einstein theory of the relativity could be thrown
away and nobody would try to mend it partially.
John anderson 2011-09-03 10:20:22
Okay, but what did he think was wrong? He went on to develop General
that generalizes SR. So it looks like he didn’t like that SR didn’t seem
gravity very well. But then he generalized it so that it did.
You’re quoting Smolin out of context which is intellectually dishonest.
But , what
the h***, you do that all the time.
Mombu 2011-09-03 10:20:24
The standard “2.7 stamenin” .
Josefmatz 2011-09-03 10:20:46
right. so i think we come closer to truth.
Josefmatz 2011-09-03 10:20:48
As i am informed it was the perihelion of mercury which came out with the
wrong sign in SRT.
They forgot to place the velocity dependent masses also into Newtons gravity
John anderson 2011-09-03 10:20:50
I know that, but that’s not the point. The original poster is
trying to imply that the Einstein eventually believed that SR
is wrong. That’s not correct. He convinced himself that
SR needed to be extended to describe gravity.
The original poster is disengenuously trying to claim that
Einstein refuted SR instead of extending the underlying principles
Mombu 2011-09-03 10:20:52
Who “informed” you about this? STASI?
You are STILL a cretin, Josef, nothing will change that.
Josefmatz 2011-09-03 10:21:00
But how could Einstein refute SR at least in the present form, if this
locally is valid also in GR ?
You probably mean he refuted SR for Newtonian like point mass calculations.
This indeed is true.