• [deleted]

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote: "The problem with this is the speed of light is just a conversion factor between spatial basis and time. (...) The speed of light is a conversion factor associated with light cones. (...) The Magueijo double relativity and related ideas are interesting, but they seem to fly in the face of this fundamental definition of the speed of light."

I see no "fundamental definition" here. Rather, the "conversion factor" wisdom is just an absurd consequence of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate. The absurdity would not have become wisdom if Lorentz, FitzGerald and Einstein had not taken recourse to "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

  • [deleted]

You have been posting these anti-relativity diatribes here for months now. In fact with your other comments about thermodynamics I think you would probably be happy if most or all physics books were committed to the fire. It is not my intention here to argue the case for relativity. I would no more do that than try to convince a panegyric for geocentric theory of the universe, something which is growing in popularity in fact, that Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo got it right with heliocentric theory. I do however wish the FQXi pages were better monitored, for your comments and those of some others who frequently post here amount to a continuous stream of fatuous nonsense. If you look at some of the early entries on FQXi there was a much higher intellectual quality to what people contributed. More recent FQXi blog entries give evidence for the adage that bad money most often chases away good money.

Cheers LC

  • [deleted]

My "anti-relativity diatribes" boil down to the claim that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is wrong:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/FP_C4_PP.HTM

"I am very curious about the results of your research...," he [Einstein] wrote to Freundlich in 1913. "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."

Do you think claims that Einstein's 1905 light postulate is wrong should be banned from FQXi's new contest "Which of our basic physical assumptions are wrong?"

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

  • [deleted]

As I said I am not interested in defending relativity in this case. It is clear that you and some others have in some manner become mis-educated or that you have internalized some set of erroneous ideas. Experimental demonstration that light is invariant with respect to the velocity of the emitter is trivial with today's technology. In fact it is not only just experimenally demonstrated, but used in various applications.

LC

Pentcho, Lawrence.

May I suggest that Maxwell considered you both correct, although he himself knew not why, viz;

He had a problem with his equations for emitters, i.e. antenna. In the end he had to derive a second set of source terms, but mostly on an empirical basis, for the 'far field', where normal Fresnel refraction and the Laws of Physics seemed to break down after a 'transition zone' (TZ) from the 'near field'. (See Fraunhofer refraction and 'non-linear optics, which are termed "poorly theoretically understood"). The terms work, as antenna engineers will tell you, but with widely differing formula for the TZ position, 10^-6m from the surface for light, but wavelength dependent, and up to almost infinity! With moving emitters it becomes more complex still.

If we consider it this way it resolves, itself and many paradoxes; Light is emitted at c wrt the emitter in the near field, but changes speed to c in the local background frame by crossing the TZ, which is a dense ion (including photoionized) surface charge/ magnetohydrodynamic shock. Let's test it;

Light from a moving car's headlight bulkb does c wrt the bulb, until it exits the lens and is changed (Doppler shifting to the blue) to c wrt the Earth, whereon it carries on at c (c/n) until the Earth's TZ (shock), where it is compressed or stretched yet again as it changes speed to c wrt heliocentric space (The BCI frame). of course it then changes speed again at the Helioshoeath to c in the ISM frame of the Galactic arm.

This then may be seen, as you prefer, as simply providing a quantum mechanism for SR, or replacing it. It just is what it is. Nature.

In this case you would both be correct, as would the Discrete Field Model (DFM). It is quite falsifiable, but if you test it you may find in clarifying nature it extracts some of your deepest held assumptions. No worry, because, though entirely logical it is so different to our indoctrinated nonsense and beliefs that our brains will normally find nowhere to 'hang it', so it will be forgotten.

If that glimpse does 'stick' do please let me know how you did it.

Thanks. Best wishes

Peter

  • [deleted]

Leonard Susskind: Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of light DOES NOT depend on the speed of the observer measuring it, the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light DOES NOT depend on the speed of the observer measuring it, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-1/principles-of-special-relativity/

Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."

John Norton: Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of light DOES depend on the speed of the observer measuring it, the Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light DOES depend on the speed of the observer measuring it, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory." MICHIO KAKU: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved." JOHN NORTON AGAIN: "This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

  • [deleted]

Why does E=mc2 ?

The physical representation of the equation is, for any given piece of matter, it flows through its life cycle (meaning all the possible motion it can experiece). It becomes space while speeding up (the first "c" cycle) and then back to matter whle slowing down (second "c" cycle but here it is slowing down). All the energy is represented by (any given matter) turning into its spatial component, and then back to matter. mass to space and back to mass. Black Hole to Vacuum Energy (via through its Standard Model and Dark Energy phases) and then reverse vector time back to its Black Hole -like state again. Its has seen its full energy circle. This is the physical explanation behind what the equation actually represents.

doug

    • [deleted]

    Photons and cannonballs have an identical acceleration in a gravitational field, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light. Einsteinians often admit that but, for the sake of confusion, introduce two additional accelerations for photons - zero acceleration and twice the acceleration of cannonballs:

    http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1000/lecturenotes12_02.pdf

    Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test particle."

    http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf

    Dr. Cristian Bahrim: "If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies."

    http://www.wfu.edu/~brehme/space.htm

    Robert W. Brehme: "Light falls in a gravitational field just as do material objects."

    http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586

    Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

    http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168

    Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 6: "A cannonball fired upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward at a constant speed..."

    http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf

    Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

    http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

    "You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation: (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    • [deleted]

    A clever Einsteinian derives the fundamental equation of Newton's emission theory of light, c'=c(1+gh/c^2), in the form dc/dh=g/c:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo

    "Relativity 3 - gravity and light"

    That is, in a gravitational field the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does.

    Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

    • [deleted]

    Correction -

    Caramel Apples - Free Gourmet "Caramel" Apples for the first person to come forward and say they believe in CIG Theory [please bring with you accompanying experimental data (proof)of the validity of CIG Theory]. There will be forms to fill out as well. All fun of course.

    I will personally hand dip them.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=caramel%20apples&gbv=2&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi

    www.CIGTheory.com CIGTheory (Caramel Apple Friendly)

    For proof, see all my suggestions in the theory ( mathematical calculations based on receding galaxies, red shift anomalies, mass to space conversions, CUPI quantification, etc. - its out there but I do not have the resources - my theory is experimentally verifiable - I need community effort and involvement -it's not that hard to understand the concept behind the theory and to more fully prove it using existing cosmological data; for instance, is there more Space surrounding larger galaxies?)

    CIG Theory - not that hard to prove -

    Hope you are enjoying the day

    What more can I say.

    Doug

      • [deleted]

      There are a number of things wrong with CIG. For one you say that matter times time equals space. Matter has units of grams [g] and time has units of seconds [s] so the product of the two has units [g-s]. Even if we use mass = energy/c^2, where energy has units of [erg], this has units of [erg-s^3/cm^2] or maybe action-s^2/cm^2. The fundamental unit of action is ħ so this might have something to do with N units of ħ/c^2. No matter how you slice this up you don't have space with units of [cm]. There is a considerable number of suppositions in CIG which just don't make physical sense.

      Cheers LC

      • [deleted]

      Douglas

      "The author views TIME as movement Dependent" & "The theoretical

      portion of MT=S started out from a simple "rate multiplied by time is equal to distance" concept, from there..."

      This is not correct. The physically existent phenomenon which corresponds with the concept of time is actually the rate at which any form of change occurs (alteration in spatial position, ie movement, being but one characteristic which changes). The underlying point here being that reality can only occur in one physically existent state at a time. This phenomenon can be measured. That is timing, which involves the comparison of frequencies of change (ie what is colloquially known as time). The speed of light is irrelevant, in so far as this has no effect on any given physical reality and change thereto; we just see that with light. Space is that which is 'not-space' (ie a spatial position which is, apparently, unoccupied, or in effect, those spatial positions which are not occupied by the entities as defined which are under consideration). The importance of this being that, according to Relativity, the dimension of entities alters when force is applied, which also causes an alteration in momentum. The latter then acts as a 'warning', because any judgement must involve a reference, and whilst any entity will suffice for such, mistakes will be made if it is not realised that the entity is not what it appears (ie its dimension is altering). Alteration in dimension having consequences on space and timing.

      Paul

      • [deleted]

      Truth is unbearable sometimes. Abandoning Einstein's 1905 false light postulate will take science back to the end of the 18th century:

      http://www.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/wtundwg/Forschung/tagungen/OWR_2006_10.pdf

      Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten. A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light --which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell (1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner (1776-1833) and François Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect, is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian context."

      http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Changing-Worldviews-Physics-Studies/dp/0817649395/

      Einstein and the Changing Worldviews of Physics, Einstein Studies, 2012, Volume 12, Part 1, 23-37, The Newtonian Theory of Light Propagation, Jean Eisenstaedt: "It is generally thought that light propagation cannot be treated in the framework of Newtonian dynamics. However, at the end of the 18th century and in the context of Newton's Principia, several papers, published and unpublished, offered a new and important corpus that represents a detailed application of Newton's dynamics to light. In it, light was treated in precisely the same way as material particles. This most interesting application - foreshadowed by Newton himself in the Principia - constitutes a relativistic optics of moving bodies, of course based on what we nowadays refer to as Galilean relativity, and offers a most instructive Newtonian analogy to Einsteinian special and general relativity (Eisenstaedt, 2005a; 2005b). These several papers, effects, experiments, and interpretations constitute the Newtonian theory of light propagation. I will argue in this paper, however, that this Newtonian theory of light propagation has deep parallels with some elements of 19th century physics (aberration, the Doppler effect) as well as with an important part of 20th century relativity (the optics of moving bodies, the Michelson experiment, the deflection of light in a gravitational field, black holes, the gravitational Doppler effect). (...) Not so surprisingly, neither the possibility of a Newtonian optics of moving bodies nor that of a Newtonian gravitational theory of light has been easily "seen," neither by relativists nor by historians of physics; most probably the "taken-for-granted fact" of the constancy of the velocity of light did not allow thinking in Newtonian terms."

      Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

        • [deleted]

        Sir Lawrence Crowell,

        Thank you kindly for your reply.

        The matter of units is a topic I worked on briefly, as this is the second time it has been offered. It appears that the application of units is one of the first things that physicists use to assess whether an equation has flaws. I never quite resolved the units issue as it was easier to dismiss. I dismissed it it, as follows: As an anology, if I am thinking correctly (remember math is not my expertise, even simple as this is) prior to E=mc2 (J=g m/s m/s), I don't believe that grams (mass) could have been taken into unit agreement with Joules (energy). Is there unit agreement in E=mc2? Was there before the equation?

        Also, as for example if apples were always known as apples and pears as pears, and oranges as oranges, and were they known units, and then some theory comes along and shows that there is an equivalency between them such that, in terms of units apples could be understood as oranges divided by pears, then so the new thinking (with much resistence of course) would be that apples is oranges divided by pears. I offer that there is a Spatial equivalency (cubic meters)to Mass (grams), and so, prior unit agreement or not, we must now accept the new conversion.

        I thank you for binging these comments forward. It allows me to focus on my rationale for my theory, and it is exactly what I need. Now I know that there are so many questions I will not be able to answer because the physics is beyond me, and my math is pathetic. Conceptually though, and rationally, I believe I can fully defend my theory and that it will hold up to the rigor of

        experimentation as well.

        I was very tempted to simply say "no caramel apples for you"!

        Thank you again Sir Crowell.

        doug

          • [deleted]

          Paul,

          Thank you. First, I have to put forward my definition of "Space". I can live with the Wiki partial definition as follows: "Space is the boundless, three-dimensional extent in which objects and events occur and have relative position and direction", however I believe it may have bounds beyond which even it does not exists, nor anything, but this is another topic altogether.

          Therefore, when I see an enclosed system, such as a cold balloon, with a defined region (internal volume) of space, and when that balloon is heated, I see a new internal volume greater than that which existed before I started heating the balloon. I am told by physicists that the molecules are moving faster, farther away from one another, and bouncing off the walls of the balloon thereby expanding the volume (at the expense of density of course). My problem with this, is that when maintaining the definition of Space I started with, I need an explanation. I cannot fathom where the new "Space" came from without introducing a reason. I continue to respect the defintions I have used when entering into the "experiment". Where did the new space come from?

          To keep it short, I have new "spatial volumes", do I not? The balloon is larger, yes? And it is an enclosed entity , yes. It is our experiment. The only thing that happened is that the particles are now moving more rapidly. I associate this movement to the "creation" of this new "space". In maintaining the Conservation of Energy Laws, something must be lost for the new "Space" to arrive. This I attribute to a loss of matter and in a similar fashion that mass is lost when energy is created in the E=mc2 equation.

          It is also my explanation of where the space comes from, for there to be expansion in the Universe. It all happens on a local level (micro) and this explains Red Shift anomalies as well. It is very important to recognize that the macro world must always be built up from the micro. This element is consistent with CIG.

          To explain the Double Slit, which you are probably all too familar with, try approaching the experiment from the view of CIG, and you should have no problem understanding the outcome(s). Light is a "particle" when stopped and in its black hole like personality (i.e. at the point of emission, and at the point where it again is absorbed by the screen), However, when traveling, it's mass becomes spatial and part of it goes through each slit, thereby offering the opportunity for constructive and destructive interferrence. [There should be a point where if the slits are spaced far enough apart, that the spatial manifestation, since it is limited by the mass to space conversion limitations/potential (see CUPI quantification), will be unable to go through both slits and interfrrence will not be possible, since only a limited amount of spatial volume was created and it was not large enough to span distant slits.].

          CIG theory is contingent upon the postulate that "the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames of reference". It takes the Lorentz "contraction along the "x" axis" and gives it a new physical interpretation.

          As for Dark Matter and Dark Energy, they are simply the same observations but viewed from different perspectives of % of "c" travel. The halos surrounding massive bodies are examples where due to gravitational effects, these effects limit the "c" rate sufficiently such that a different "Spatial" quantity with a different "mass component" unfold. The space unfolds in the same proportions as length contraction along the x-axis based on how fast a massive particle travels. Can someone look at the dark energy/dark matter data to confirm this correlation? When light can't move at all (black hole), no space manifests and mass alone exists in a singularity. [there are other considerations here such as there must be a certain volume of space for mass to exist; conversely, for the vacuum energy, there must be a mass component - singularities appear unstable - but we will not get into that here]

          If you could explain the balloon problem to me, and convince me that there is no actual new space inside the balloon, then I can rethink things. Right now I am very confused. I have been walking around with the recognition (belief) that I (physically) have a certain equivalency to space and time. It is an uneasy feeling. [The theory also combines the spacetime continuum with the mass-energy equation].

          I will elaborate more on your email later as I agree with much of it.

          From CIG Theory (www.cigtheory.com)

          "Where there is a different time there must be a different

          place. Where there is a different place, there is a different

          space. Where there are different spaces, there are different

          volumes. CIG theory explains the creation of new volumes of

          space created as the result of different times imparted onto

          the world universe and as a direct result of the relativistic

          nature of nature."

          Lots more work to do, and lots of refinement needed to assess what is actually happenng in nature -- need help

          Paul - please keep trying to understand the theory (perhaps you already do?) By all means attack it, since if CIG does not hold up to the rigors of scrutiny, it deserves to crumb cake.

          thx

          doug

            Lawrence, Petcho.

            Do you agree that in the above you're both correct? Please offer any falsification you may perceive, but remember, scientific advances are NEVER familiar at first sight.

            Pentcho, - Interestingly this is somewhat equivalent to Einstaedt's Mitchell-Arago etc. basis, but without conserved photons due to absorption and re-emission on scattering, which solves the rest of the problems they were not able to address (the reason the model faded away I believe).

            Peter

            • [deleted]

            Einsteiniana's priests readily criticize the absurd consequences of Einstein's 1905 false light postulate in favor of the reasonable implications of the Newtonian alternative, the equation c'=c+v showing how the speed of light varies with v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Still they would never replace the false postulate with the Newtonian alternative. Einstein's 1905 light postulate (c'=c) is false but it has been a money-spinner for more than a century. The Newtonian equation c'=c+v is true but, if adopted, would take science back to the end of the 18th century and Einsteiniana's priests do not wish to go there:

            http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148

            "Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

            http://www.humanamente.eu/PDF/Issue13_Paper_Norton.pdf

            John Norton: "It is common to dismiss the passage of time as illusory since its passage has not been captured within modern physical theories. I argue that this is a mistake. Other than the awkward fact that it does not appear in our physics, there is no indication that the passage of time is an illusion. (...) The passage of time is a real, objective fact that obtains in the world independently of us. How, you may wonder, could we think anything else? One possibility is that we might think that the passage of time is some sort of illusion, an artifact of the peculiar way that our brains interact with the world. Indeed that is just what you might think if you have spent a lot of time reading modern physics. Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of motion in space and all other processes that unfold in them merely reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be found. There is no passage of time."

            http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-time-an-illusion

            Craig Callender: "Einstein mounted the next assault by doing away with the idea of absolute simultaneity. According to his special theory of relativity, what events are happening at the same time depends on how fast you are going. The true arena of events is not time or space, but their union: spacetime. Two observers moving at different velocities disagree on when and where an event occurs, but they agree on its spacetime location. Space and time are secondary concepts that, as mathematician Hermann Minkowski, who had been one of Einstein's university professors, famously declared, "are doomed to fade away into mere shadows." And things only get worse in 1915 with Einstein's general theory of relativity..."

            Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com

            • [deleted]

            I am surprised there are people here who do not believe in specials relativity and E=mc^2. World War 2 ended after we built the atomic bomb and dropped it on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. The whole idea of the atomic bomb was to convert a mass m of Plutonium into energy based on the conversion rate E=mc^2.

            Do people who don't believe in special relativity also not believe in atomic bombs? Do they not remember the Cold War? The Cuban missile crisis? Atomic testing?

              Hi Jason,

              LOL! This is basically a wide open forum so what did you expect? The anti-relativity people will be stuck to it like glue. Best to just ignore them.

              Fred

              • [deleted]

              Jason, Fred,

              You are the most intelligent Einsteinians I have ever known so please tell me if the following argument is valid:

              If the speed of light depended on the speed of the light source, no atomic bomb would have been built.

              Atomic bombs *were* built.

              Therefore the speed of light does not depend on the speed of the light source, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

              Pentcho Valev pvalev@yahoo.com