**Article reference:**http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/05/tweaking_einstein_unified_theo.html

### Tweaking Einstein - Unified Theory of Relativity

Did Einstein go wrong when he accepted Minkowski's mathematical description of space and time as a unique entity? He did, says Viraj Fernando in his recently completed *"Unified Theory of Relativity".* The paper, says Viraj, explains the phenomena occurring in vector fields as well as gravitational fields under the 'Universal Formal Principle' that energy has inertia, and when energy is in motion, the inertia of energy causes a resistance in the form of a drag against the background field, leading to the manifestation of various 'relativistic phenomena'.

In contrast with Franco Selleri, who proposes the use of "equivalent transformations" instead of the Lorentz transforms, Fernando says the Lorentz transformations are valid:

"We demonstrate by derivation that the physical basis of Lorentz transformation is the fact that energy has inertia, and that when energy is in motion this inertia develops a resistance to the background space. In our theory, the constancy of the velocity of light is no more a postulate as in Einstein's theory."

Fernando takes his cue from Einstein's approving view of thermodynamics, something to which not everyone would necessarily subscribe. Ken Rauen's challenge of the Second Law echoes my sentiments on that front. Sadi Carnot, says Viraj Fernando, demonstrated "the impossibility of construction of a perpetuum mobile". Well, he may have demonstrated that a periodic heat engine cannot put out more motion than the equivalent in heat put in, less some, but there apparently are ways in which novel energy generation can get around that characteristic limit of the old steam engine.

Here follow the abstract and introduction to Viraj Fernando's paper, which you can also download in PDF format to study and comment on.

- - -

**THE UNIFIED THEORY OF RELATIVITY - Viraj Fernando**

**ABSTRACT**

The reason why we have entitled this paper as 'the Unified Theory of Relativity' is because we explain the phenomena occurring in vector fields as well as gravitational fields under the same 'Universal Formal Principle' that energy has inertia, and when energy is in motion, the inertia of energy causes a resistance in the form of a drag against the background field, leading to the manifestation of various 'relativistic phenomena'. In this paper we derive the general formula for E = Mc2(Γ-1) for kinetic energy, by way of a geometrical theorem and show how it tends to 1/2Mv2 at low velocities. We demonstrate by derivation that the physical basis of Lorentz transformation is the fact that energy has inertia, and that when energy is in motion this inertia develops a resistance to the background space. In our theory, the constancy of the velocity of light is no more a postulate as in Einstein's theory. We demonstrate with facts confirmable by experiments, that there is a physical mechanism of self-adjustment between spin and linear momenta of an energy transmission in order to move at the constant translational velocity c. We also show how the gravitational redshift, the cosmological redshift and the aberration of starlight are manifestations of this mechanism of self-adjustment between spin and linear momenta. On the basis of the same 'universal formal principle': of possession of inertia by energy, and that when energy is in motion, this inertia develops a resistance to the background field, we show how an energy transmission deflects the direction of its transmission in gravitational fields. Unlike in Einstein's theory (where two equations are involved) we not only predict the advancement of the perihelion of planets and the bending of a ray of light under one and the same equation, but we also obtain a result of very high accuracy for the bending of a ray of light by a deflection of 1.313" as against 1.74" in Einstein's theory which has an error of over 20%. This will be the decisive test between the two theories.

**INTRODUCTION**

This paper finds explanations for all relativistic phenomena under a unified theory based on first principles originating from some of the concepts of Einstein, Maxwell and Newton which have not received the due attention in modern physics. This approach is in contrast to Einstein's constructive approach where the special theory or the general theory are required discriminately to explain these same phenomena depending on whether they occur in vector fields or gravitational fields. We have in our approach provided new dynamic explanations and predictions for some of the phenomena for which theory of relativity has been able to provide only kinematic explanations or none at all (e.g. aberration of starlight). And for some phenomena, we have also provided more accurate predictions, where the theory of relativity has been able to predict results only partially (e.g. bending of a ray of light, gravitational redshift). How we have arrived at this new approach is as follows.

Upon careful scrutiny of Einstein's 'Autobiographical Notes', the essays by other physicists, and Einstein's responses to these essays in the same book (1), it becomes clear that Einstein himself has considered his constructive theories to be tentative. Einstein goes so far as to say that there is a "right way and we are capable of finding it" implying that the way by which he has developed the theory is not the right way. Filmer Northrop points to this position taken up by Einstein and indicates that this is an unequivocal admittance by Einstein that his basic tenet of spatio-temporal relatedness in nature on which theory of relativity is constructed is a mere mental construct (1, p.398). In response Einstein endorses Northrop's view: "I see in this critique a masterpiece of unbiased thinking and concise discussion which nowhere permits it to be diverted from the essential" (1, p. 683). This situation necessitates us to review some of Einstein's ideas in his formative period and to consider whether his theory could be reformulated.

In reviewing Einstein's ideas in the early period, we find that as a corollary to the very first paper on special theory of relativity, and in the same volume of Annalen der Physik Vol 17, 1905, Einstein has written an accompanying paper on Inertia of Energy (2, p.69). In the same year (in Vol 18), he has written the rigorous derivation of the expression for inertia of energy, and then again he has written yet another paper on the same subject in 1906 (1, p. 524). All these show how much of importance Einstein has ascribed to the concept of inertia of energy originally, at the formative stages of his theory. It appears that Einstein has had a hunch that inertia of energy is the physical basis of relativistic phenomena, but his pre-occupation with the novel concepts of relativity of simultaneity and the spatio-temporal relatedness which he mistakenly thought to hold the key to unravelling of the mystery of Lorentz transformations, has obscured the simple path to the explanation of relativistic phenomena in terms of inertia of energy.

Einstein therefore has proved the 'law of inertia of energy' relativistcally (1, p.524), when in fact he should have proved the converse, that relativistic phenomena arise from the existence of inertia of energy.

It appears that it was while Einstein was still grappling to incorporate inertia of energy into the theory, that Minkowski has made the fatal formulation of the theory in terms of "world geometry" in 1908. It is worth noting that Einstein had at first rejected Minkowski's proposals. According to Arnold Sommerfeld: "When.. Minkowski built up the special theory of relativity into his 'world geometry' Einstein said on one occasion: 'Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I don't understand it myself anymore'. But soon after, at the time of the conception of the general theory of relativity, he readily acknowledged the indispensability of the four dimensional scheme of Minkowski" (1, p.102). We see here Einstein making a decision to abandon his preferred path of physics, and adopting mathematical physics instead, under youthful haste and expediency of developing his theory to embrace all phenomena around the year 1912. (In contrast to Einstein's approach, in the present paper we develop the theory on the premise that the inertia of energy is the physical basis of relativistic phenomena).

It is not only that Einstein has indicated that there is a "right way" as against the detour he has taken in terms of mathematical physics, but he has even ventured to point out the type of theory this "right way" would lead to. Although Einstein developed his relativity theory as a 'constructive theory', it becomes clear that he was convinced of the superiority of 'theories of principle', of the type of classical thermodynamics from the following statement. 'It (thermodynamics) is the only physical theory of universal content concerning which I am convinced that, it will never be overthrown...'(1, p.33). Therefore, contrasting the provisional nature of his theory in the present constructive form, and implying the necessity to write it as a theory of principle, he wrote, "there is, in my opinion, a right way, and that we are quite capable of finding it ....." (1, p. 398).

Einstein also wrote: .... 'The longer and the more despairingly I tried, the more I came to the conviction that only the discovery of a universal formal principle could lead to 3

assured results. The example I saw before me was thermodynamics. The general principle was there given in the theorem: the laws of nature are such that it is impossible to construct a perpetuum mobile' (1, p.53).

In thermodynamics, the impossibility of construction of a perpetuum mobile was demonstrated by Sadi Carnot, by showing that even in an ideal engine, where all the radiative, frictional etc., heat losses have been eliminated, there would still be a fraction of heat that will defect without being converted to work. Due to this defection of the fraction of heat, the construction of a perpetuum mobile becomes impossible. The greater the ambient temperature relative to the temperature of the source, greater the defective fraction of heat and lesser the heat available for the conversion to work. It was found that if the data were extrapolated so that the ambient temperature is reduced to absolute zero, then this fraction that defects disappears altogether, and the total heat produced would be available for conversion to work completely. There is a striking similarity between this and the implications of Maxwell's equations. The momentum available to move a charge appears to defect a fraction of it, depending on the velocity of the proper reference frame, and consequently work is performed only partially, when that reference frame is in motion. When the data are extrapolated so that the velocity of the proper reference frame is zero, the total momentum becomes completely available for work. Therefore, this was found to be analogical to the impossibility of construction of the perpetuum mobile in thermodynamics. However, a study of the pattern of changes of co-ordinates in a motion of a particle revealed that it follows a more complicated form - Lorentz transformation. Einstein therefore wrote intuitively, (i.e. without demonstrating how this analogy works), stating that: "The universal principle of the special theory of relativity is contained in the postulate: the laws of physics are invariant with respect to the Lorentz-transformations. .... This is a restricting principle for natural laws, comparable to the restricting principle of the non-existence of the perpetuum mobile which underlies thermodynamics" (1, p.57). We demonstrate how this analogy works in Appendix II.

Towards the end of his career Einstein came to the conclusion that there is a "total field". "Our problem is that of finding the field equations for the total field"(1, p. 89). In this paper in deriving the equation E = Mc2(Γ -1) for the quantity of kinetic energy required to set a body in motion, we prove that the momentum necessary for the motion of matter emanates from the "total field".

Maxwell realised that there are errors and omissions in the Newtonian conceptual framework and to address this problem he set out to develop his programme. "....the determination of the quantity of energy which enters or leaves a material system during the passage of the system from its standard state to any other definite state" (3, p. 74). Maxwell has insisted that in the implementation of this programme, the changes of configuration and motion, and the energy that enters or leaves a system, must be considered in extreme generality (3, p. 122). We believe that our theory is a synthesis of the conceptions of Newton and Maxwell together with some of Einstein's ideas in his formative stages which he abandoned in preference to Minkowski postulates.

Considering all the above factors, we believe that Einstein himself would have arrived at the simple theory we are presenting in this paper, had he not made the fatal error under expedient circumstances of following the path of mathematical physics chartered out by Minkowski.

(Download the whole paper here)

**See also: **

WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG

*Finding the Virtual Velocity of Light, Solving the Mystery of the Failed Michelson-Morley Experiment*

## Comments

May 29, 2006 10:20 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevViraj Fernando wrote: "In our theory, the constancy of the velocity of light is no more a postulate as in Einstein’s theory. We demonstrate with facts confirmable by experiments, that there is a physical mechanism of self-adjustment between spin and linear momenta of an energy transmission in order to move at the constant translational velocity c."

How about the speed of light in a gravitational field? Do you agree with Einstein who in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity" claims that in a gravitational field the speed of light is variable (e.g. greater than c=300000km/s)? The following is written by orthodox relativists:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

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

Pentcho Valev

May 29, 2006 7:12 PM| Posted by: Robert KerrRobert Kerr comments (by email):

Dear Sepp,

when will scientists recognize that energy is not an entity? Energy is simply the force exerted by mass in motion. There is no energy without mass. Consequently, electromagnetic radiation force can only be transmitted by infinitesimal mass increments. The pressure of these increments is temperature. This recognition agrees with the structure and behavior of the Universe. The mass increments are photons. For this reason I find it hard to digest prevalent scientific nonsence. Logical causality is the only acceptable basis for Physics!

Sincerely, Bob Kerr

May 30, 2006 2:43 PM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevFurther explanations by an even more informed hypnotist, Tom Roberts, in sci.physics.relativity:

> Sam Wormley wrote:

> > Valev confuses *velocity* of light with *speed* of light!

> AFAIK Einstein basically thought in German, which does not have

> different words for "speed" and "velocity" ("die Geschwindigkeit" is

> used for both). Certainly his "velocity of propagation" could be phrased

> as "speed of propagation" without changing the underlying physics.

> Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

>

> Pentcho Valev wrote:

> > CAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT EXCEED 300000 km/s IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD?

> Sure, depending on the physical conditions of the measurement. It can

> also be less than "300000 km/s" (by which I assume you really mean the

> standard value for c). And this can happen even for an accelerated

> observer in a region without any significant gravitation (e.g. in

> Minkowski spacetime).

> Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

Pentcho Valev

May 30, 2006 3:57 PM| Posted by: Pentcho Valev"Sadi Carnot, says Viraj Fernando, demonstrated "the impossibility of construction of a perpetuum mobile"."

Not exactly. See

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

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

Pentcho Valev

June 8, 2006 7:36 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevHOW EINSTEIN PROVED THE EXISTENCE OF ETHER

The proof was simple but convincing. Einstein said:

http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html :

"Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable..."

Since general relativity is something the zombie world has worshipped for almost a century, the ether does exist. True, many hypnotists in the relativity cult say ether does not exist but the reasons are purely didactic. In Einstein's zombie world zombies' original minds should be destroyed and replaced with secondary minds where ether exists and does not exist, the speed of light is constant and variable, the periphery of the rotating disc is longer and shorter than the periphery of the non-rotating disc, the twin at rest is older and younger than the travelling twin etc.

Pentcho Valev

June 10, 2006 8:42 PM| Posted by: SeppViraj has written another paper, addressed to the people who participated in an informal, email mediated discussion about the best way to disprove Einstein's relativity, then collected together by Prof Bartocci and published on his site.

To: All the Participants of the Bolonga Conference of 1999.

From: Viraj Fernando.

THE FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS OF SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

This letter concerns the report in Prof. Umberto Bartocci's website in regard to the discussion between some leading opponents of SRT that has taken place as a sequel to the 1999 Bologna Conference on the Fundamental Problems concerning the Special Theory of Relativity, www.cartesio-episteme.net/quest.htm

I wish to inform you that I have formulated a dynamic theory that explains relativistic phenomena. And this theory not only covers most of the matters raised by various participants in the above series of discussions but also it covers many more matters. What has been brought up as single isolated issues against the theory of relativity as individual pieces of a jigsaw by various participants in the above discussions, emerge as an interrelated whole, with their individual jigsaw pieces interlocking into one another nicely together in this theory.

See: Fundamental Problems of SRT

June 14, 2006 8:31 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevEINSTEIN PROVES VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT

Relativity hypnotists:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm :

"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]...... Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:

'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.

which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,

c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )

where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

Other relativity hypnotists:

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

By comparing the two teachings, try to discover whether the frequency shift found by Pound and Rebka is due to VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT AS MEASURED BY THE RECEIVER or to something else.

Pentcho Valev

June 17, 2006 8:27 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevTWIN PARADOX AND EINSTEIN'S PRINCIPLE OF MAXIMUM ABSURDITY

Relativity hypnotists continue to confuse the zombie world by claiming, on the one hand, that gravitation is the cause of greater youthfulness of the travelling twin:

http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0143-0807/27/4/019

and, on the other, that gravitation is not the cause of greater youthfulness of the travelling twin - see Problem 19, "Modified twin paradox", on p. 49, solution on p. 65, in

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

That is Einstein's principle of maximum absurdity in action: Never advance an absurdity without superimposing another absurdity that negates the first.

Pentcho Valev

June 18, 2006 8:10 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevREBUILDING RATIONALITY IN EINSTEIN'S ZOMBIE WORLD

The first step towards the restoration of rationality in science (destroyed by Einstein's criminal cult) should be the recognition of the variability of the speed of light. That is, the speed of light varies with position in a gravitational field (and can become greater than c=300000km/s) and is c+v in the absence of a gravitational field, where v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer:

http://mailer.uwf.edu/listserv/wa.exe?A2=ind0606&L=chemed-l&D=1&P=24405

http://www.groupsrv.com/science/about159926.html

The huge camouflage utilized by relativity hypnotists involves misleading definitions of "variable speed of light"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_speed_of_light

and especially the idiotic claims that the speed of light is constant by definition and that it is constant relative to a freely falling reference frame:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

"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!.....

In special relativity, the speed of light is constant when measured in any inertial frame. In general relativity, the appropriate generalisation is that the speed of light is constant in any freely falling reference frame (in a region small enough that tidal effects can be neglected)."

The hypnotist is teaching that, although the speed of photons varies with position in a gravitational field, if you fall freely next to them you will measure their speed to be constant, e.g. 300002km/s. The zombie world should analyse carefully the situation and find that this "constancy" has nothing to do with the constancy of the speed of light originally defined by Einstein.

Pentcho Valev

June 26, 2006 3:40 PM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevCONVERSION OF EINSTEIN'S ZOMBIES?

Eistein's zombies will never stop destroying scientists' lives. According to rules established in Einstein's criminal cult, those who see something idiotic in "I measure your clock to be slower than mine and you measure mine to be slower than yours" should be losers, better dead. Yet for some time zombies have not been worshipping Divine Albert very fiercely. What could be the reason? I suspect zombies are worrying over the following problem:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm

"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.

Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:

'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.

which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,

c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )

where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

This is written by relativity hypnotists so its absolute truth is guaranteed. Yet those hypnotists claim that the speed of light is variable for an accelerating observer, in the absence of a gravitational field. Could then the accelerating observer measure the speed of light to be c+v, where c is the speed of the photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer? True, the frame is not inertial - zombies could repeat this endlessly - and yet the formula c+v is something very very dangerous. Zombies don't know what to do but, just in case, they consider a possible future conversion. In the meantime the destruction of scientists' lives should continue.

Pentcho Valev

June 29, 2006 10:05 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevSHOULD EINSTEIN HAVE GONE FISHING FROM 1920 ONWARDS?

Lord Martin Rees, the President of the Royal Society wrote:

"Cynics have said that Einstein might as well have gone fishing from 1920 onwards. Although there's something rather noble about the way he persevered in his attempts to reach far beyond his grasp, in some respects the Einstein cult sends the wrong signal."

Yes Einstein SHOULD have gone fishing from 1920 onwards - by 1920 he had completely plagiarized Poincare and there was nothing else to do (apart from destroying rationality in science).

Pentcho Valev

July 1, 2006 8:15 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevEINSTEIN'S NIGHTMARE

At some stage Einstein's business was quite good: the combination of the principle of variability of the speed of light (the c+v principle) and the equivalence principle was producing excellent predictions (e.g. the frequency shift factor confirmed in numerous experiments). However Einstein did not know how to deal with the idiotic principle of constancy of the speed of light (the c principle) whose miraculous corollaries (time dilation, length contraction etc.) had converted Albert the Juggler into Divine Albert but which nevertheless had become a terrible menace. In his panic Einstein decided to camouflage the idiotic principle by surrounding it with even greater idiocies. So in Chapter 7 in his "Relativity" Einstein knows no limits and claims that the principle of constancy of the speed of light is a corollary of the principle of relativity:

"For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo must, ACCORDING TO THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of reference."

Pentcho Valev

July 3, 2006 8:36 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevRELATIVITY HYPNOTISTS WISH TO KNOW IF EINSTEIN WAS WRONG

35 years ago Hafele and Keating proved unequivocally that Einstein was right and so guaranteed salaries in Einstein's criminal cult for a few decades:

http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/H&KPaper.htm

Now relativity hypnotists feel the question "Was Einstein wrong?" should be asked and in this way salaries will be guaranteed for a few more decades:

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/406.html

The experiment will be similar to that performed by Hafele and Keating; the difference is that at present the death of science education is irreversible, Einstein's zombie world is much more confused than 35 years ago and the obscurity relativity hypnotists introduce in their explanations is unlimited:

"The International Space Station will have ultra-sensitive clocks on board, and it is a good place to test the theory," said Alan Kostelecky, professor of physics at Indiana University in Bloomington. "By comparing extremely precise clocks that can operate under zero gravity, minuscule changes in the ticking rate might be found as the spacecraft moves around Earth." This would violate Einstein's theory, which says there should be no change if different clocks in the same gravity environment are compared.

"Finding such changes would cause an upheaval in the science community and revolutionize our thinking about the fundamental structure of space and time," Kostelecky said. "It would lead to insight about how our universe formed and how nature operates."

Pentcho Valev

July 4, 2006 8:23 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevTHE END OF POSTSCIENTISM?

Einstein's criminal cult have destroyed many heretical lives (zombies know no limits) but they certainly will not be able to fight the journal NATURE where the panic is growing:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html

"Physics in crisis?"

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050117/full/433218a.html

"Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science."

http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html

"Research on 'relativity violations' is reaching fever pitch, with the number of manuscripts on the subject up ten-fold from a decade ago, physicists heard at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting, held in St Louis, Missouri, on 20 February."

Soon the wisdom "I measure your clock to be slower than mine and you measure mine to be slower than yours" will be characterized correctly: just an idiocy equivalent to "The greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length". But the end of Postscientism is not the beginning of New Rationality: it will take generations before insane science becomes totally inefficient.

Pentcho Valev

July 5, 2006 11:35 PM| Posted by: bert SchreiberBefore lambasting Sepp et al, I suggest you first go read any dictionary (English understood here), especially a correct scientific one.

Anything can be a physical constant under the present mathematical or scientific definition of a constant.

The speed of light was defined by the infallible decree of those in power and that doesn’t make it so. It is NOT UNIVERSAL!

At least 99.999% of the current scientists, professional or amateur, especially those who peer review papers and the Editors who permit them to be published do not know the distinction (Einstein did not either) between speed and velocity.

Look up the physical definition of virtual while you are about it.

What is a WAVE, SPACE, Aether, or a vacuum, as four of many more examples, has never been finitely, or in one instance (wave), correctly, defined.

Question: How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg? 4. Calling the tail a leg doesn’t make it one. Aether believers note this one and the speed of light.

These will do for now.

Bert Schreiber

July 7, 2006 9:44 AM| Posted by: Pentcho ValevANYONE CAN BECOME A RELATIVITY HYPNOTIST

http://www.physorg.com/news71421491.html :

"In a "faking it" style test, a social scientist has fooled a panel of physicist judges into believing he was an experienced gravitational wave physicist.

An interview appearing in the journal Nature this week details how Collins -- who has spent more than 30 years studying the community of physicists who work on gravity waves -- answered seven questions about gravity waves set by an expert in the subject. His replies, together with those from a gravitational physicist, were sent to nine researchers in the field.

Asked to spot the real physicist, seven were unsure and two chose Collins.

"The results show that outsiders can develop a kind of expertise in a scientific field," says Collins."

Pentcho Valev