and/or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
2014-02-08 21:48:54 UTC
The main reason for Einstein deriving e=mcc by positing
c(v=0) = c(v=V) is that he wanted to get rid of the
aether concept, as that supported electromagnetic waves
as really as sound waves. If we believe in the reality
of electromagnetic waves, we also have to believe in the
reality of Lorentz force, F=qE + qvXB. Modern physicists
like to dismiss it as a virtual force, like say
centrifugal force. Virtual or not, the effects of Lorentz
force is apparent in the workings of every electric
motor.
Anyway, e=mcc is wrong for it is based upon c(v=V) =
c(v=0) while in reality as the Michelson-Morley
Interferometry experiment, when properly analysed as I
did back in 2005 and published in Usenet, Mother Nature
has it that c(v=V) = c(v=0) + V. Or put it another way,
the first postulate of Einstein is absolutely false.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
Were your ideas discussed here on USENET presented atc(v=0) = c(v=V) is that he wanted to get rid of the
aether concept, as that supported electromagnetic waves
as really as sound waves. If we believe in the reality
of electromagnetic waves, we also have to believe in the
reality of Lorentz force, F=qE + qvXB. Modern physicists
like to dismiss it as a virtual force, like say
centrifugal force. Virtual or not, the effects of Lorentz
force is apparent in the workings of every electric
motor.
Anyway, e=mcc is wrong for it is based upon c(v=V) =
c(v=0) while in reality as the Michelson-Morley
Interferometry experiment, when properly analysed as I
did back in 2005 and published in Usenet, Mother Nature
has it that c(v=V) = c(v=0) + V. Or put it another way,
the first postulate of Einstein is absolutely false.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
IIT-Kgp and IIT-D?
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.jai-maharaj
The first post in this thread:
In article
http://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-relativit%C3%A9-James-H-Smith/dp/B003YEIA3S
James H. Smith, "Introduction à la relativité", édition
française dirigée par Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, p. 41: "Il
nous faut insister sur le fait suivant : quand Einstein
proposa que la vitesse de la lumière soit indépendante de
celle de la source, il n'en existait aucune preuve
expérimentale."
http://www.amazon.com/The-Perfect-Theory-Geniuses-Relativity-ebook/dp/B00B0SCF7M
The Perfect Theory: A Century of Geniuses and the Battle
"If you try to combine Newton's laws of motion with
Maxwell's laws for electromagnetism, troubles arise. If
the world indeed obeys both of these sets of laws, it is
possible, in principle, to construct an instrument out of
magnets, wires, and pulleys that will not sense any force
in one inertial frame but can register a force in another
inertial frame, violating the rule that inertial frames
should be indistinguishable from one another. Newton's
laws and Maxwell's laws thus appear inconsistent with
each other. Einstein wanted to fix these "asymmetries" in
the laws of physics. In the years leading up to his 1905
papers, Einstein devised his concise principle of
relativity through a series of thought experiments aimed
at solving this problem. His mental tinkering culminated
in two postulates. The first was simply a restatement of
the principle: The laws of physics must look the same in
any inertial frame. The second postulate was more
radical: In any inertial frame, the speed of light always
has the same value and is 299,792 kilometers per second.
These postulates could be used to adjust Newton's laws of
motion and mechanics so that when they were combined with
Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism, inertial frames
remained completely indistinguishable. Einstein's new
principle of relativity also led to some startling
results. The latter postulate required some adjustments
to Newton's laws. In the classic Newtonian universe,
speed is additive. Light emitted from the front of a
speeding train moves faster than light coming from a
stationary source. In Einstein's universe, this is no
longer the case. Instead, there is a cosmic speed limit
set at 299,792 kilometers per second. Even the most
powerful rocket would be unable to break that speed
barrier. But then odd things happen. So, for example,
someone traveling on a train moving at close to the speed
of light will age more slowly when observed by someone
sitting at a station platform, watching the train go by.
And the train itself will look shorter when it is moving
than when it is sitting still. Time dilates and space
contracts. These strange phenomena are signs that
something much deeper is going on: in the world of
relativity, time and space are intertwined and
interchangeable."
Clearly the only reason behind Einstein's 1905 constant-
speed-of-light postulate was his irresistible desire to
destroy the concepts of space and time, the linchpin that
holds the whole range of rational physical abstractions
together. Nowadays scientists (including many
Einsteinians) are desperately trying to restore
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
Philip Ball: "Einstein's theory of special relativity not
only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time
equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already
out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we
get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead
end, says Smolin."
http://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Crisis-Physics-Universe/dp/0547511728
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of
time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was
dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error
in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors
in insoluble dilemmas..."
http://www.homevalley.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135:its-likely-that-times-are-changing&catid=41:quantec-articles&Itemid=68
"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical
than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time
that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his
onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one
century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician
Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the
presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of
reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The
lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to
the world the marriage of the two, now known as
spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists
passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are
starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce.
(...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the
task of finding the true reality obscured by the
spacetime mirage."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900-saving-time-physics-killed-it-do-we-need-it-back.html
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we
need it back?"
http://www.newscientist.com/special/challenging-einstein?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news
New Scientist: "Sorry, Albert: Physics that challenges
Einstein. Gravity, relativity, space and time - Albert
Einstein explained all these and more. But he had an
uneasy relationship with quantum theory, and with
physicists still casting around for a unifying theory of
physics, his ideas in all areas are under scrutiny like
never before. If we want to progress towards a theory of
everything, we need to understand how space and time fit
together - if they do at all."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the
University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is
hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the
consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time
exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though,
is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which
describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry
can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and
matter."
Pentcho Valev
James H. Smith, "Introduction à la relativité", édition
française dirigée par Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond, p. 41: "Il
nous faut insister sur le fait suivant : quand Einstein
proposa que la vitesse de la lumière soit indépendante de
celle de la source, il n'en existait aucune preuve
expérimentale."
http://www.amazon.com/The-Perfect-Theory-Geniuses-Relativity-ebook/dp/B00B0SCF7M
The Perfect Theory: A Century of Geniuses and the Battle
"If you try to combine Newton's laws of motion with
Maxwell's laws for electromagnetism, troubles arise. If
the world indeed obeys both of these sets of laws, it is
possible, in principle, to construct an instrument out of
magnets, wires, and pulleys that will not sense any force
in one inertial frame but can register a force in another
inertial frame, violating the rule that inertial frames
should be indistinguishable from one another. Newton's
laws and Maxwell's laws thus appear inconsistent with
each other. Einstein wanted to fix these "asymmetries" in
the laws of physics. In the years leading up to his 1905
papers, Einstein devised his concise principle of
relativity through a series of thought experiments aimed
at solving this problem. His mental tinkering culminated
in two postulates. The first was simply a restatement of
the principle: The laws of physics must look the same in
any inertial frame. The second postulate was more
radical: In any inertial frame, the speed of light always
has the same value and is 299,792 kilometers per second.
These postulates could be used to adjust Newton's laws of
motion and mechanics so that when they were combined with
Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism, inertial frames
remained completely indistinguishable. Einstein's new
principle of relativity also led to some startling
results. The latter postulate required some adjustments
to Newton's laws. In the classic Newtonian universe,
speed is additive. Light emitted from the front of a
speeding train moves faster than light coming from a
stationary source. In Einstein's universe, this is no
longer the case. Instead, there is a cosmic speed limit
set at 299,792 kilometers per second. Even the most
powerful rocket would be unable to break that speed
barrier. But then odd things happen. So, for example,
someone traveling on a train moving at close to the speed
of light will age more slowly when observed by someone
sitting at a station platform, watching the train go by.
And the train itself will look shorter when it is moving
than when it is sitting still. Time dilates and space
contracts. These strange phenomena are signs that
something much deeper is going on: in the world of
relativity, time and space are intertwined and
interchangeable."
Clearly the only reason behind Einstein's 1905 constant-
speed-of-light postulate was his irresistible desire to
destroy the concepts of space and time, the linchpin that
holds the whole range of rational physical abstractions
together. Nowadays scientists (including many
Einsteinians) are desperately trying to restore
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
Philip Ball: "Einstein's theory of special relativity not
only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time
equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already
out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we
get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead
end, says Smolin."
http://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Crisis-Physics-Universe/dp/0547511728
"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of
time, Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was
dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error
in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors
in insoluble dilemmas..."
http://www.homevalley.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=135:its-likely-that-times-are-changing&catid=41:quantec-articles&Itemid=68
"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical
than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time
that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his
onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one
century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician
Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the
presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of
reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The
lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to
the world the marriage of the two, now known as
spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists
passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are
starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce.
(...) Physicists of the 21st century therefore face the
task of finding the true reality obscured by the
spacetime mirage."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900-saving-time-physics-killed-it-do-we-need-it-back.html
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we
need it back?"
http://www.newscientist.com/special/challenging-einstein?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news
New Scientist: "Sorry, Albert: Physics that challenges
Einstein. Gravity, relativity, space and time - Albert
Einstein explained all these and more. But he had an
uneasy relationship with quantum theory, and with
physicists still casting around for a unifying theory of
physics, his ideas in all areas are under scrutiny like
never before. If we want to progress towards a theory of
everything, we need to understand how space and time fit
together - if they do at all."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"...says John Norton, a philosopher based at the
University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is
hesitant to express it, but his instinct - and the
consensus in physics - seems to be that space and time
exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though,
is that it doesn't sit well with relativity, which
describes space-time as a malleable fabric whose geometry
can be changed by the gravity of stars, planets and
matter."
Pentcho Valev