The usual hyperbole. Embarrassing, my eye. If it were embarrassing, Greene wouldn't have gotten any mileage out of his book, let alone get a PBS special. Physicists love it when they find something that contradicts the edificial theories. That's how Einstein got his start, by showing that Newton didn't get it quite right. Later, the theory of quantum mechanics required a complete upheaval of classical physics, and the fame and glory spawned by that era is not lost on 21st century physicists, who would love to smash the general theory of relativity to bits. 'Twas always thus. It's this kind of things that keeps physics alive and well. And I don't mean that in a cynical way. The failure of general relativity, if indeed it has failed, points the way to a clearer understanding of the Universe. That's not embarrassing. That's exciting. The popular press, usually with the cooperation of physicists, loves to beat the drum of crises, controversy, and competeition. It's a lot of hooey.

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

harvard.edu pp.2-4

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

Pentcho Valev

The Michelson-Morley experiment did not lead to two competing principles. The experiment was designed to test those principles, and clearly came out on the side of your alternative 2, that the speed of light is independent of the state of motion of the source.

The first interpretation is true, the second wrong...

People have been trying to outsmart Einstein for 100 years, but special relativity has stood up to all challenges, which is, as you know, based on the constancy of the speed of light.

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

It's all about reference frames. According to General Relativity, observers in a gravitational field always measure the speed of light to be the same value, whether you are in the most remote portion of the intergalactic medium or hovering over the event horizon of a black hole. Local measurements say c=c. By contrast, the speed of light appears to change when traversing a varying gravitational field, according to distant observers, or observers located in a region of spacetime with a different curvature. It is a calculational convenience to simply assume that the speed of light varies in a gravitational field, all the while knowing that if you were there with an experiment that could measure the speed, you would get the conventional value of c. That is the nature of warped spacetime. For a nice presentation of this, see Exploring Black Holes: Introduction to General Relativity by Taylor and Wheeler.

WHY EINSTEIN WAS FED UP WITH RELATIVITY IN 1921

A suggestion:physicstoday.org

Pentcho Valev

P.S. The mentioned NATURE newsblog can be seen here:

SUICIDAL CIVILIZATION?

Recently titles like "Physics in Terminal Decline", "A Farewell to Physics", "Physics in Crisis" have become commonplace. Science authorities are upset by the declining number of students that may result in a declining number of professors. So authorities will try to increase the number at the expense of students' quality. The main slogan of the movement remains unchanged:

"One should indefatigably defend the fundamental miracles "All heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same maximal efficiency" and "The speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source" which are true by reason of the huge amount of money they have brought to defenders. A diligent defender will sooner or later become a PAID defender."

Pentcho Valev

HONESTY IN EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT

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

ucr.edu
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: ...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so."

Why is hypnotists' honesty increasing? Because hypnotists feel much more comfortable now: the voice of Einstein's zombies has been reduced to a simple echo. For instance: The hypnotist: CONSTANT! Zombies' echo: CONSTANT, CONStant, constant...

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

Pentcho Valev

WHY EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT IS NECESSARY

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

c' = c + V/c /1/

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

c' = c + v /2/

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

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

Pentcho Valev

ILYA PRIGOGINE: GREATER THAN EINSTEIN
Von Neumann once said: pitt.edu
"No one knows what entropy really is..." That is, the concept contains maximum obscurity and nobody, not even Einstein, could introduce more obscurity.

Perhaps Von Neumann did not know what Prigogine was able to do. He simply combined two incommensurable equations (eqs. 4.2 and 4.3' in I.Prigogine, "From Being to Becoming", Freeman and Co, 1980), obtained a new absurd expression for the entropy (eq. 4.13) and so converted the most obscure concept in science into a commodity-like entity part of which is produced within the system and the rest is imported: "We must distinguish TWO TERMS IN THE ENTROPY CHANGE, dS: the first, deS, is the transfer of entropy across the boundaries of the system; the second, diS, is the entropy produced within the system." (Prigogine's book, p. 5).

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

Pentcho Valev

Seriously, I'd like to know more about this, but the discussion is too heavy & technical for me. Any way to make it simpler?

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

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:

pitt.edu
"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

THE LAST CONVULSION OF EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT

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

However happiness cannot be eternal and after 100 years of uncontrolled outrages Einstein's cult will have to disappear. Its last convulsion can be seen in physorg.com where the gravitational redshift is shown to confirm, for the last time, the divine theory.

Pentcho Valev

EINSTEIN: THE GENIUS AMONG GENIUSES WHO KILLED PHYSICS

"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."

The genius among geniuses 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."

Pentcho Valev

EINSTEIN'S SECOND POSTULATE AND THE DEATH OF PHYSICS

Philosophers of science are organizing a conference where the role of Einstein's second postulate in the extermination of modern physics and the destruction of human rationality may be discussed. Philosophers are particularly impressed by two confessions of Einstein's:

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

Einstein again: "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."

Of course, philosophers of science may find it more suitable to ignore the issue. Who knows.

Pentcho Valev

HOW MANY GENERATIONS OF SCIENTISTS HAVE BEEN LOST?

"Part of the problem, say critics, is that, in the Eighties, talented young physicists were encouraged by professors to take up string theory because of its immense promise. Now they are middle-aged department heads who have committed their lives to the subject and cannot see it is bogus. It is the scientific equivalent of the emperor's new clothes."

I think the campaign started much earlier - it is near completion now:

"Next generation of scientists could be lost say key science organisations"

Pentcho Valev

TWO FATALITIES IN PHYSICS

1. The dependence of the speed of light on the speed of the light source.

2. Einstein's choice of the field concept of light.

See physicstoday.org

Pentcho Valev

INEVITABILITY IN EINSTEIN'S WORLD

"Reading University's department is unlikely to be the only one in the UK that has "dropped below the level of viability". The trouble is, departments can't advertise their vulnerability for fear of losing talented research staff and scaring off prospective students.
"This is why we don't hear about it until it is too late," says Diamond."

Pentcho Valev

BREATHTAKING REVOLUTION IN PHYSICS

"Another university to drop physics...In the past decade 19 physics departments have merged or closed."

Pentcho Valev

BIOLOGISTS WILL TEACH PHYSICS

"[We will look at] whether we should be training biology teachers, so that they can become specialist teachers in chemistry and physics."

Pentcho Valev

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': "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

EINSTEINIANS WILL UNMASK EINSTEIN

In Appendix 3 in his "Relativity" Einstein starts from the time dilation factor 1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) and eventually deduces the frequency shift factor 1+V/c^2 where V is the gravitational potential. In the process Einstein replaces the time dilation factor 1/gamma with its Taylor approximation 1-v^2/2c^2 and for almost 100 years Einsteinians have been absolutely sure that this replacement can only be due to Einstein's genial intuition and sense of harmony.

However lately Einsteinians with powerful intellects have been haunted by a difficult question: Why should the approximation 1-v^2/2c^2 be more suitable than the exact quantity 1/gamma? The inquiry is going to turn into a panic since the frequency shift factor 1+V/c^2 can be rigorously deduced from the principle of variability of the speed of light and this alternative deduction involves no suspicious approximations at all:

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

Einsteinians love Einstein passionately but, on the other hand, their honest hearts would not tolerate any trickery. As soon as they manage to understand why Einstein hid the obviously correct deduction

VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT -> FREQUENCY SHIFT

and replaced it with the trumped-up deduction

TIME DILATION -> FREQUENCY SHIFT

they will unmask him. There can be no doubt about that.

Pentcho Valev

WHY EINSTEIN'S THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS INCOMPARABLE

In Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" Einstein claims that, in a gravitational field, the speed of light "varies with position". This means that photons can have speed 300000km/s in position 0, 300001km/s in position 1, 300002km/s in position 2 etc. Even without any analysis the expression "varies with position" should cause some embarrassment in Einstein's world. It does not. The inhabitants of Einstein's world do not care.

One of the reasons is that, according to the English translation of Einstein's book, it is "velocity", not "speed", that "varies with position". So Einsteinians raise an argument: "Velocity varies but speed does not. Where is the problem? You don't understand the difference between velocity and speed?"

Then, at the height of their triumph, Einsteinians admit it is speed that varies and so the situation of heretics who don't understand the difference between velocity and speed becomes even graver:

ucr.edu
"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."

Of course, the velocity/speed trick is a low level one, designed to influence relatively weak intellects in Einstein's world. For relatively stronger intellects Einsteinians have prepared relatively stronger arguments, e.g. the speed of light is variable in general relativity but constant in special relativity, the speed of light is variable globally but constant locally etc.

Pentcho Valev

Tony Blair and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Tony Blair: "In 1959, in Cambridge, C.P. Snow famously suggested that there exist in this country two separate cultures, all but unknown to each other, of the sciences and the arts. It was, he said, somehow culturally acceptable to be ignorant of the second law of thermodynamics in a way in which ignorance of Shakespeare was not. Nearly half a century on, the sciences have become more specialised and popular understanding of its intricacies is, if anything, even worse."

Jos Uffink: "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

MUONS AND RELATIVITY FRAUD

"Some secondary muons have such high energies that they are able to penetrate the Earth to depths of more than 3.2 km (2 miles)."
source
"The energy loss of a muon in the atmosphere is about 2 GeV and therefore the muons which contribute to the low energy neutrino flux do not reach the ground."

Relativists' confessions (on sci.physics.relativity):
"Yes indeed: a low energy muon incident on the top of the earth's atmosphere will lose energy quickly due to interactions with the air, will penetrate the atmosphere only a small distance, and will live only a short time. A high energy muon will lose some of its energy due to interactions with the air, but will still have a considerable energy when it reaches the ground, and it will penetrate the ground (perhaps several kilometers); on average it will live a much longer time than the low energy muon. Yes, the low energy muon had a shorter "lifetime" than the high energy muon (both measured by an observer at rest wrt the earth). Yes, this is NOT due to time dilation."

Pentcho Valev

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

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.

Pentcho Valev

EINSTEINIANS TEACH "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by definition!.....Any such possible photon rest mass is certainly too small to have any practical significance for the definition of the metre in the foreseeable future, but it cannot be shown to be exactly zero--even though currently accepted theories indicate that it is. If it wasn't zero, the speed of light would not be constant; but from a theoretical point of view we would then take c to be the upper limit of the speed of light in vacuum so that we can continue to ask whether c is constant."

Pentcho Valev

WHY EINSTEIN TURNED PALE IN 1911-1915: "It's hard not to wonder what event or discovery could make Einstein turn pale and disappear, ending his universe as definitely as the atomic massacre in Hiroshima said fini to Newton's."

In fact, Einstein did turn pale between 1911 and 1915: "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."

Then Divine Albert realized that in the Divine Science he had created "both constant and variable" is much more shocking and profitable than just "constant".

Pentcho Valev

EINSTEIN'S 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 or lower than that value (V>0 or V<0).

Pentcho Valev

WHY DEATH OF SCIENCE IS IRREVERSIBLE p.4:

"Even deliberate attempts at careful formulation of the Second Law sometimes end up in a paradox. One sometimes finds a formulation which admits that thermodynamics aims only at the description of systems in equilibrium states, and that, strictly speaking, a system does not always have an entropy during a process. The Second Law, in this view, refers to processes of an isolated system that begin and end in equilibrium states and says that the entropy of the final state is never less than that of the initial state (Sklar 1974, p. 381). The problem is here that, by definition, states of equilibrium remain unchanged in the course of time, unless the system is acted upon. Thus, an increase of entropy occurs only if the system is disturbed, i.e. when it is not isolated."

Einstein offered much more efficient conundrums, e.g. 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". The secret of such conundrums is that any attempt at disentagling them intensifies the destruction of human rationality. Intelligent students abandon science, less intelligent students discover the equation

science = learning by rote

However conundrums develop (the progress of science cannot be stopped) and in the end even learning by rote becomes too difficult. At that very moment the University and College Union (UCU) declares "potentially irreversible decline of UK science that could soon see parts of the UK unable to provide courses in both science and maths":

Pentcho Valev

THE MONEY-SPINNER OF RUDOLF CLAUSIUS

Heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot. In Clausius' 1850 language this statement would take the form:

X: It is impossible, without any expenditure of force or any other change, to transfer heat from a cold to a hot body.

X is a true statement and therefore its negation, not-X, is false:

Not-X: It is possible, without any expenditure of force or any other change, to transfer heat from a cold to a hot body.

If not-X is a corollary of the statement Y, then Y is false and not-Y is true. So in 1850 Clausius deduced a version of the second law of thermodynamics:

Not-Y: Reversible heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same efficiency. (Y: Reversible heat engines working between the same two temperatures have different efficiencies.)

The problem was (and still is) that not-X is NOT a corollary of Y. Clausius did not deduce anything. He just laid the foundations of the huge edifice of irrationality that crushed science but proved extremely profitable for the builders.

Pentcho Valev

NOBEL PRIZES IN THE ERA OF POSTSCIENTISM

For a closed system doing reversible work of expansion the first law of thermodynamics takes the form

dU = dQ - PdV /1/

where dU is the internal energy change, dQ is the heat absorbed, P is pressure and V is volume. Since the system is CLOSED and undergoes reversible changes the entropy change is, by definition, dS=dQ/T and /1/ becomes:

dU = TdS - PdV /2/

J. Gibbs managed to convince the world that, if the system is OPEN (substances are added to it), /2/ should be replaced by

dU = TdS - PdV + SUM mu_i dn_i /3/

where mu_i is the chemical potential and n_i is the amount of the ith component. However Gibbs failed to explain the meaning of the entropy change, dS, for an OPEN system. Was dS again equal to dQ/T, as for a closed system, or was dS equal to something else when substances were added to the system?

The fact that dS was not defined for open systems made the equation /3/ so fashionable (scientists adore equations with undefined terms) that in the end /3/ was called "the fundamental equation of thermodynamics". Yet scientists somehow felt that a new definition of dS would bring even more money. The quickest among them, Ilya Prigogine, simply combined /1/ and /3/ and obtained

dS = dQ/T - (1/T)SUM mu_i dn_i /4/

The Nobel Committee immediately gave him the money in the form of a Nobel Prize.

Pentcho Valev

BEYOND EINSTEIN: NEWTON

Einstein's theory is an inconsistency: the set of its axioms involves, explicitly, the principle of INVARIABILITY of the speed of light and, implicitly, the principle of VARIABILITY of the speed of light. Any development, improvement etc. should obviously be preceded by a removal of the false principle of invariability of the speed of light and the miracles it has generated (time dilation, length contraction, Minkowski's spacetime etc.). "Relativity without Einstein's second postulate" has been a recurrent dream of initiated Einsteinians who have known about the falsehood from the very beginning:

worldscibooks.com:
"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."

The problem is that "Relativity without Einstein's second postulate" or, in other terms, "Relativity without c", is equivalent to "Back to Newton". Curiously, the proof of this equivalency can be found in perhaps the most famous textbook on relativity:

harvard.edu
p.35: "Relativity without c....it is easy to imagine a universe where the speed of light depends on the frame of reference. Light could behave like a baseball, for example. So let's drop the speed of light postulate and see what we can say about the coordinate transformations between frames, using only the relativity postulate."
p.38: "There is only one decision to be made when constructing the spacetime structure of an (empty) universe. You just have to say whether V is finite or infinite, that is, whether the universe is Lorentzian or Galilean."

Note that "Light could behave like a baseball" amounts to an implicit introduction of Newton's particle model of light (confirmed by Einstein himself in 1905) valid in a Galilean universe where the speed of light is VARIABLE.

Pentcho Valev

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:

from Indiana University: "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: "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

THE FORGOTTEN FACET OF EINSTEIN'S THEORY

In 1964 Einsteinians discovered that Einstein's inconsistency, like any other inconsistency, is based on two incompatible principles: the principle of invariability of the speed of light and the principle of variability of the speed of light. They called the discovery "a previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory" and made use of it in the sense of extracting money from it:

blazelabs.com:
"The first confirmation of a long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational field. He had proposed an observational test to check his prediction: bounce radar beams off the surface of Venus and Mercury, and measure the round trip travel time. When the Earth, Sun, and Venus are most favorably aligned, Shapiro showed that the expected time delay, due to the presence of the Sun, of a radar signal traveling from the Earth to Venus and back, would be about 200 microseconds more than it would if the sun was not present. Later on, using the MIT Haystack radar antenna, the experiment was repeated, matching Shapiro's predicted amount of time delay. The experiments have been repeated many times since, with increasing accuracy. This experiment had for the first time shown that the constants like c and G, assumed constants in Einstein's SR theory suffered local (or regional) in the proximity of massive bodies like the sun. Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated: "In the second place our result shows that, 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 and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position..."

Pentcho Valev

WHERE EXACTLY THE PHYSICS CRISIS IS:

Lee Smolin: "The crisis is not in physics overall but in that part of physics whose goal is to deepen our understanding of the laws of nature. Since the middle 1970s, there has been no definitive progress, no match between a new experimental result and a new theoretical prediction. That's worrying.....String theory is not a theory in the sense that Newtonian mechanics or quantum mechanics is. It's not defined by the statement of two or three principles that are expressed in the basic equations of the theory--which are then solved to yield examples and predictions."

Note that a year ago the paradigm for something "defined by the statement of two or three principles that are expressed in the basic equations of the theory--which are then solved to yield examples and predictions" would inevitably have been Einsteinian mechanics. Now Smolin believes it is Newtonian mechanics again whereas Einstein's name is not even mentioned. And Smolin was an admirer of Einstein, to say the least.

Pentcho Valev

Inconsistency Queen of Science 1850-2007

When you introduce a falsehood in physical science you cannot remove the respective truth from your theory. Rather, explicit falsehood and implicit truth form a powerful couple able to produce virtually any result you need. The following quotation is based on formal logic and is an exaggeration with respect to physical theories; nevertheless it is quite instructive:

W. H. Newton-Smith, The Rationality of Science, Routledge, London, 1981, p. 229: "A theory ought to be internally consistent. The grounds for including this factor are a priori. For given a realist construal of theories, our concern is with verisimilitude, and if a theory is inconsistent it will contain every sentence of the language, as the following simple argument shows. Let 'q' be an arbitrary sentence of the language and suppose that the theory is inconsistent. This means that we can derive the sentence 'p and not-p'. From this 'p' follows. And from 'p' it follows that 'p or q' (if 'p' is true then 'p or q' will be true no matter whether 'q' is true or not). Equally, it follows from 'p and not-p' that 'not-p'. But 'not-p' together with 'p or q' entails 'q'. Thus once we admit an inconsistency into our theory we have to admit everything. And no theory of verisimilitude would be acceptable that did not give the lowest degree of verisimilitude to a theory which contained each sentence of the theory's language and its negation."

As soon as you introduce the magic contradictory couple rationality starts disappearing and you do not need valid arguments anymore. Invalid arguments increase the power of your theory additionally: whether "Reversible heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same efficiency" does or does not really follow from "Heat never flows spontaneously from cold to hot" is a question brothers scientists would never ask.

The falsehood enables you to demonstrate miracles and become a divinity; the respective truth enables you to predict verifiable results. Einstein's false principle of constancy of the speed of light produces miracles such as time dilation, length contraction, Minkowski's space-time, time travel etc. Einstein's (rather, Newton's) true principle of variability of the speed of light gives correct predictions such as the gravitational redshift factor.

Pentcho Valev

Moving Pisa-Leaning-Tower experiment can resolve the physics crisis.