sci4um.com Relativity Forum

Relativity :: The CADO Reference Frame for an Accelerating Observer

Author: Mike Fontenot
Subject: The CADO Reference Frame for an Accelerating Observer
Posted: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:33 pm (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 0

I posted some information about the CADO reference frame, and the CADO equation, way back in 2005 on this forum. This forum now seems to be inactive, which is a shame, I think ... it was a good forum.

I created a new webpage during the last year, that explains the CADO reference frame in considerable detail:

https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame

The original CADO paper is:

Fontenot, Michael L., "Accelerated Observers in Special Relativity", Physics Essays, December 1999, pp. 629-648.
_________________
https://sites.google.com/site/cadoequation/cado-reference-frame

Relativity :: The ultimate

Author: 3ality
Subject: The ultimate
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:53 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 0

http://www.geocities.com/sciliterature/RelativityDebates.htm

Relativity :: The ultimate

Author: 3ality
Subject: The ultimate
Posted: Wed May 21, 2008 10:52 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 0

http://www.geocities.com/sciliterature/RelativityDebates.htm

Relativity :: SRT , GRT and � Minkowski space �.

Author: socratus
Subject: SRT , GRT and � Minkowski space �.
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 9:49 pm (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 1

SRT doesn't have a gravity field. If there is no gravity
field , the space will be flat ( Pseudo- Euclid�s space),
but usually this space is called �Minkowski space �
(negative 4-D united space/time continuum).
======.
a) SRT is a right theory .
But " Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.
b) Our planet Earth is home for us.
We live and act in this planet.
And " Minkowski space " is home for SRT.
All SRT particles live and act in this
" 4-D negative continuum - Minkowski space " .
But nobody knows what " Minkowski space " is.
c) These two ideas are mixed together and therefore
the interpretation of physics is paradoxical.
========= ===========
SRT has only one space - �Minkowski space �.
But in 1915 Einstein put a � MASS � in the
�Minkowski space � and it curved.
In 1921 A. Freedman put � TIME � in the
�Minkowski space � and it also curved.
And Einstein had to agree with Freedman�s idea.
What is the reason of �Minkowski space � change?
==========
If mathematician makes a small mistake in the
beginning of his calculations then after some
operations it grows into a big one.
And if in the beginning of sciences birth (Newton )
the abstract ideas were put into its fundament ,
then now we are surprised with its paradoxes��
��and we can create new and new theories for 1000 years
but the result will be the same - paradoxical.
===========================..
It began in 1905 when Einstein created SRT,
(theory of photon/electron�s behaviour).
Minkowski, tried to understand SRT using 4D space.
Poor young Einstein, reading Minkowski interpretation,
said, that now he couldn�t understand his own theory.
� Einstein, you are right, it is difficult to understand SRT
using 4D space. But it is possible using my 5D space"
- said Kaluza in 1921.
This theory was tested and found insufficient.
"Well", said another mathematicians, - "maybe 6D, 7D,
8D, 9D spaces will explain it". And they had done it.
But the doubts still remain.
"OK", they say, "we have only one way to solve this problem.
We must create more complex D spaces".
And they do it, they use all their power, all their super intellects
to solve this problem.
Glory to these mathematicians !!!!
But��.
But there is one problem.
To create new D space, mathematicians must add a new parameter.
It is impossible to create new D space without a new parameter.
And the mathematicians take this parameter arbitrarily
(it fixed according to his opinion, not by objective rules).

The physicist, R. Lipin explained this situation in such way:
"Give me three parameters and I can fit an elephant.
With four I can make him wiggle his trunk�"
To this Lipin�s opinion it is possible to add:
"with one more parameter the elephant will fly."
The mathematicians sell and we buy these theories.
Where are our brains?
==========.
Please remember, many D spaces were born as a wish
to understand SRT (theory of photon/electron�s behaviour).
But if someone wants to understand, for example, a bird
(photon/electron)itself and for this he studies only
its surroundings, will he be successful?
===============.
If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every mathematician who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal
"To the winner over common sense".
Why?
Because they have won us over using the
absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza.
==============..
I think this space is a real one.
I think this space is Vacuum.
Why?
1. � Minkowski space �has no gravity field, but negative parameter.
2. Only pure Vacuum space has no gravity
but negative parameter : T= - 273.
3. And this negative parameter is united with space/ time ,
which are joined together absolutely .
4. And the second SRT postulate tells about moving
light quanta in Vacuum.
5. It is impossible SRT to be the right theory
and space around SRT to be an abstract theory.
6. If in our brain abstract and real ideas are mixed together
then the interpretation of physics must be paradoxical.
====== ======
The SRT is a real theory.
The bombs of Nagasaki and Hiroshima proved it.
But " 4-D Minkowski space " is an abstract theory.
There isn't any proof of its existence.
And if we mix these two theories then we are
surprised with its paradox.
What does the man usually do in such situation?
It is clear, he must understand
what � 4-D Minkowski space " is. I say, it is Vacuum.
But somebody can say: � You are wrong,
4-D Minkowski space is only a part of 11-D space.�
Maybe this argument is correct. Then we must suppose
that the 11-D space will be a part of some 47-D space
in 50 years. And who knows where its end is.
Perhaps in 123-D space the physicists will find the God there.
In another words, if we don�t know what � 4-D Minkowski
space " is, so it is impossible to take SRT as a finished one.
The proof of SRT isn�t over yet. We must give a real
interpretation to � 4-D Minkowski space ". I only hope that
a simple, usual logic will help a man to understand its essence.
====== =========
P.S.
Sorry.
I forgot that all Universe began from " apparent big bang ".
So I must add the " apparent big bang " to " D-space"
��..or to " the God "......................
Then ...............
The atheist will say : " There isn�t any God. There is only
big band which destroyed all �D- spaces� and therefore
we see background radiation T=2,7K now."
And religious man will say: " The God exists.
He sits at his � D- home� and plays with all things.
For example.
The action, when the God compresses all Universe
into his palm, we have named " a singular point".
And action, when the God opens his palm,
we have named the "Big Bang".
I don�t know who is right.
But I came to conclusion:
" If I, as a peasant, think like modern physicists,
I will never gather my harvest . Because if I plant ,
for example, an electron I will get ��a positron, �.
�..quark,�baryon,�boson,�..meson,�muon,�..tau,....
.....D- spaces �. and in the future centaurs and sphinxes."
======= ======..
Best wishes.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net/
_________________
The secret of God and Life is hiding in the � Theory of Light quanta.�

Relativity :: For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics

Author: 3ality
Subject: For the Einstein worshipers and skeptics
Posted: Tue Oct 02, 2007 11:23 pm (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 3

Two excellent books.

The Einstein Myth and the Ives Papers: A Counter-Revolution in Physics by Dean Turner; Richard Hazelett (Paperback - Oct 1, 2005)

http://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Myth-Ives-Papers-Counter-Revolution/dp/1932717056/ref=sr_1_1/105-8940098-5720432?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191367056&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1932717056/ref=sib_dp_bod_toc/105-8940098-5720432?ie=UTF8&p=S008#reader-link

Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist
http://home.comcast.net/~xtxinc/prioritymyth.htm

Relativity :: aether drift patents

Author: 3ality
Subject: aether drift patents
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:32 pm (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 0

I found some patents that disclose methods of measuring the velocity relative to the electromagnetic aether.

You can look them up here http://ep.espacenet.com/numberSearch?locale=en_EP

Here's the list:

US6634600 (USA)
GB2276718 (Britain)
DE3823106 (Germany)
JP10019683 (Japan)

US 6634600 Satellite constellation for measuring atmospheric wind speeds using doppler lidar
see Column 2 lines 10+

Quote:

Additionally, various satellite observation methods based on the Doppler effect have been proposed. JP-A-10 19683 proposes, in a constellation of at least three satellites, sending laser pulses from one satellite to a mirror on other satellites rotating in opposite directions. The pulses are reflected toward the source satellite and the time difference between the pulses is measured; a measured value of the electromagnetic ether speed is deduced from this.

Here's some Derwent abstracts of the others.

PUB-NO: GB002276718A
DOCUMENT-IDENTIFIER: GB 2276718 A
TITLE: Instrument for measuring velocity and direction.

PUBN-DATE: October 5, 1994

INVENTOR-INFORMATION:
NAME COUNTRY
BRISCOE, JOSIAH ALFRED
N/A
ASSIGNEE-INFORMATION:
NAME COUNTRY
ASPDEN HAROLD
GB
APPL-NO: GB09306690
APPL-DATE: March 31, 1993
PRIORITY-DATA: GB09306690A (March 31, 1993)
INT-CL (IPC): G01S011/12 , G01P003/36
EUR-CL (EPC): G01P003/36 , G01S011/12 , G01P013/04

US-CL-CURRENT: 342/107

ABSTRACT:

CHG DATE=19990617 STATUS=O> An optical instrument for sensing absolute movement v of the instrument, relative only to the aether in which light propagates, comprises a coherent light source 1, which is a laser beam, divide 2 into two parallel rays which fan out as spherical wavefronts and overlap at an observer position to create optical interference fringes. The lateral positions of the fringes are affected by lateral motion through space at velocity v measured in the plane of the parallel ray axes. Displacement of the fringes is detected by a photoresistor 6 placed behind a pinhole in a screen 5. The screen can also be laterally displaced to scan across the fringes. The instrument can be suspended to allow rotation in order to vary its absolute orientation, which is said to be detectable by the fringe displacement. The instrument thus has navigational or educational applications.

-----------------------------------------------

DERWENT-ACC-NO: 1990-023226
DERWENT-WEEK: 199004
COPYRIGHT 2006 DERWENT INFORMATION LTD
TITLE: Lorenz-theory-based data transmission method - carrying data on aether waves of longitudinal electrostatic and magnetostatic type
INVENTOR: BSCHORR, O
PATENT-ASSIGNEE: BSCHORR O[BSCHI]
PRIORITY-DATA: 1988DE-3823106 (July 7, 1988)
PATENT-FAMILY:
PUB-NO PUB-DATE LANGUAGE PAGES MAIN-IPC
DE 3823106 A
January 11, 1990
N/A
009
N/A
APPLICATION-DATA:
PUB-NO APPL-DESCRIPTOR APPL-NO APPL-DATE
DE 3823106A
N/A
1988DE-3823106
July 7, 1988
INT-CL (IPC): G01S005/00, H04B013/00 , H04L027/00
ABSTRACTED-PUB-NO: DE 3823106A
BASIC-ABSTRACT:
The data transmission method uses as data carrier the longitudinal electrostatic and magnetostatic aether waves resulting from the modified Lorenz concept. The said aether waves can be used to as navigation aids. The auther outlines Lorenz's theory and modifications and discusses transversal and longitudinal waves and their contributions to the carriage of information.
CHOSEN-DRAWING: Dwg.1/2
TITLE-TERMS: THEORY BASED DATA TRANSMISSION METHOD CARRY DATA WAVE LONGITUDE ELECTROSTATIC MAGNETOSTATIC TYPE
ADDL-INDEXING-TERMS: RETARD POTENTIAL POSITION FIX NAVIGATION
DERWENT-CLASS: W01 W02 W06
EPI-CODES: W01-A09; W02-C09; W06-A03;
SECONDARY-ACC-NO:
Non-CPI Secondary Accession Numbers: N1990-017730

-------------------------------------

PAT-NO: JP410019683A
DOCUMENT-IDENTIFIER: JP 10019683 A
TITLE: METHOD AND DEVICE FOR CERTIFYING EXISTENCE OF ELECTROMAGNETIC ETHER
PUBN-DATE: January 23, 1998
INVENTOR-INFORMATION:
NAME COUNTRY
NAKAMURA, HIROSHI
ASSIGNEE-INFORMATION:
NAME COUNTRY
NAKAMURA HIROSHI
N/A
APPL-NO: JP08188316
APPL-DATE: June 28, 1996
INT-CL (IPC): G01J009/04 , G01B009/02 , G01D021/00
ABSTRACT:
PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To provide a method for certifying the existence of electromagnetic ether as a medium of electromagnetic wave.
SOLUTION: Michelson-Morley interferometer utilizing Jaseja's laser, is installed on an aircraft moving at a high speed, or a space shuttle having higher relative speed, and the wind of ' electromagnetic ether' is observed by changing an angle in a traveling direction. Or plural (at least three) of artificial satellites are launched in a condition that they have the relative speed as high as possible to the ground, the laser pulses are emitted from one of the satellites to the mirrors of the other satellites, in such manner that they are rotated in the direction opposite to each other, the mirrors of the other satellites are installed in such manner that the laser pulse is recovered to the original satellite, and the time difference of the laser pulses recovered to the original satellite is measured.
COPYRIGHT: (C)1998,JPO

--------------------

DERWENT-ACC-NO: 1998-148922
DERWENT-WEEK: 199814
COPYRIGHT 2006 DERWENT INFORMATION LTD
TITLE: Electromagnetic ether existence verification method - involves observing existence of electromagnetic ether by changing angle of progress direction of satellite in which interferometer is installed
PATENT-ASSIGNEE: NAKAMURA H[NAKAI]
PRIORITY-DATA: 1996JP-0188316 (June 28, 1996)
PATENT-FAMILY:
PUB-NO PUB-DATE LANGUAGE PAGES MAIN-IPC
JP 10019683 A
January 23, 1998
N/A
008
G01J 009/04
APPLICATION-DATA:
PUB-NO APPL-DESCRIPTOR APPL-NO APPL-DATE
JP 10019683A
N/A
1996JP-0188316
June 28, 1996
INT-CL (IPC): G01B009/02, G01D021/00 , G01J009/04
ABSTRACTED-PUB-NO: JP 10019683A
BASIC-ABSTRACT:
The method involves installing an interferometer which is used as a laser source in a satellite moving at high speed. The angle of progress direction of the satellite is changed and the existence of electromagnetic ether is observed. Laser pulse is emitted from one satellite to other satellite and is received back from the other satellite. The time difference of the emission and reception of laser pulse is measured.
ADVANTAGE - Avoids influence of relative velocity of light source in verification result.
CHOSEN-DRAWING: Dwg.2/2
TITLE-TERMS: ELECTROMAGNET ETHER EXIST VERIFICATION METHOD OBSERVE EXIST ELECTROMAGNET ETHER CHANGE ANGLE PROGRESS DIRECTION SATELLITE INTERFEROMETER INSTALLATION
DERWENT-CLASS: S02 S03
EPI-CODES: S02-A03A; S02-K08A; S02-K09; S03-A09;
SECONDARY-ACC-NO:
Non-CPI Secondary Accession Numbers: N1998-118040

Relativity :: Emergence of Lorentz invariance in condensed matter

Author: app02drm
Subject: Emergence of Lorentz invariance in condensed matter
Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:10 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 0

Hi Everyone.

I've been reading Volovik's book 'The Universe in a Helium Droplet' and wondered if someone who knows more than I can explain something to me.

He says throughout the book that Lorentz invariance emerges in the low-energy corner. I was wondering exactly how this comes about, for example, I can't see anywhere a proof that the O(1,3) group emerges.

Basically, I was wondeing if someone could explain how it comes about, how it is proved to be Lorentz invariance and where I can find a definative proof that it is Lorentz invariance.

Thanks

Relativity :: Six posutulates of QM?

Author: Bill Hobba
Subject: Six posutulates of QM?
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 4:28 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 4

I was looking at the synopsis of one of the subjects I have enrolled in:

Review of operators and their role in quantum mechanics, different
representations, Dirac notations and linear vector space, matrix approach to
quantum mechanics, eigenvalues and eigenvectors, unitary transformations, R-
and P-representations, tensor product of states, six postulates of quantum
mechanics, concept of measurements, quantum entanglement, density matrix,
general theory of angular momentum, quantum oscillator, two-level systems,
non-relativistic theory of spin, spinors, hybrid orbitals and chemical
bonding, theory of scattering, Born approximation, partial wave analysis,
perturbation theory.

Six postulates of QM? My reading of Von Neumann's standard book is that
that there are only two. What am I missing?

Thanks
Bill

Relativity :: Censorship of chronological violations

Author: Hunter
Subject: Censorship of chronological violations
Posted: Fri Jul 21, 2006 12:38 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 0

Rich non-arbitrary topological change may occur in a relativistic
vacuum space-time that violates chronology at every point, such that
every closed timelike curve (CTC) is ``censored" by passing through a
wormhole's event horizon. A Cauchy-like surface may exist through which
all timelike curves pass once and only once before crossing an event
horizon. All CTCs in a time-orientable space-time must pass through a
wormhole; otherwise the CTC could be deformed as a CTC to a
non-time-orientable point. Therefore, if all wormholes have event
horizons, there is chronology protection against uncensored CTCs, and
the universe is safe for those historians who cannot see through event
horizons. An indicator of a space-time's completeness which is
conformally invariant, unlike geodesic completeness, is that no causal
boundary exists, or equivalently that the entire space-time is a
chronology violating set. Such ``causally complete" space-times fail to
satisfy assumptions of the topological censorship theorem and a wide
range of singularity theorems.

If a wormhole's two mouths are nearby, its event horizon as a one-way
membrane causes the wormhole to propagate, mimicking the behavior of a
photon. If the two mouths are not nearby, they mimic the behavior of a
fermion and its anti-particle. Energy-momentum conservation implies
that these pseudo-photons can be created or destroyed only in multiples
of 2 (similar to results of Gibbons and Hawking), and that their
destruction creates gravitational waves. The time-reversed phenomenon
would be a collision of (non-planar) gravitational waves that creates
entangled pseudo-photon pair.

Relativity :: "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Observations"

Author: Tde
Subject: "Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Observations"
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:11 pm (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 0

"Another Rebuff to General Relativity By Cosmological Observations"

Cosmological observations have recently indicated that the "expansion"
of the universe to be faster at extreme distances than it is over most of
its observable volume. There have been attempts to reconcile these
observations with the predictions of General Relativity. These attempts, for
example, resurrected Dr. Einstein's idea of the cosmological constant as a
possible source of a repulsive force to explain this effect. This is rather
startling since one does not have to be a rocket scientist to recognize that
the so-called cosmological constant is the conventional gravitational
constant expressed in terms of the energy represented by the gravitational
masses involved. Obviously if a repulsive force existed which was equal and
opposite to the conventional gravitational force, there would be no net
force to cause the Universe to contract and the static Universe which was
the cosmological belief at the time would result. When the expansion of the
Universe was recognized , Dr. Einstein recanted his belief in the
cosmological constant.

What is overlooked is the fact that when we observe extreme distances
such as exist when we look at the source of the "big bang" or in a
direction opposite to that source we are looking backwards in time. The
description of the "Big bang" tells us that the Universe suddenly appeared
at a point in space which then underwent an almost instantaneous
"inflationary expansion" which then settled down to the more sedate
expansion we presently observe. In other words, at the beginning the rate of
expansion was apparently much larger than it is now. The same effect is to
be expected when we look outward to extreme distances. We are making
observations of events which occurred very early in the history of the
Universe. If, at that time, the Universe was apparently expanding in an
"inflationary" manner, it must also apparently expand in an inflationary
manner at extreme distances. What we should see is that the rate of the
universe's expansion increases at extreme distances, and this is what is
being observed! The only mystery is what is causing the inflation.

When one correctly derives General Relativity the source of the
apparent "inflationary" expansion becomes readily apparent. The strangeness
occurs as a result of Dr. Einstein's incredibly naive error in the
derivation. Correctly derived, General Relativity provides meets all of the
observational tests which are alleged to have verified (valid only in weak
fields such as exist in the Solar system. The corrected gravitational theory
account for:

A:- The observed gravitational force in terms of three dimensional Euclidean
Space (observationally verified).

B:- It is consistent with the ABSOLUTE validity of the Law of Conservation
of Energy.

C:- It eliminates the idea of "Black Holes" since gravitational pressure and
radiation pressure at extreme densities (twice the ABSOLUTE "Event Horizon"
radius or less) gravitational pressure and radiation pressure balance each
other and gravitational collapse ceases. (See
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm.)

D:- The apparent "inflationary expansion" at extreme distances results from
the fact that the ABSOLUTE velocity of light was much higher in the past.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.

Relativity :: "Einstein's Unfortunate Legacy #2"

Author: Tde
Subject: "Einstein's Unfortunate Legacy #2"
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 5:10 pm (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 0

"Einstein's Unfortunate Legacy #2"

Following his success with The Special Theory of Relativity, Dr.
Einstein extended his approach to include accelerated reference frames. It
was his contention that the force produced by a gravitational field could be
considered to be equivalent to the inertial force produced by a spatial
acceleration. The result was a postulate, the Principle of Equivalence,
which along with the Principle of Relativity upon which Special Relativity
was based, led to the generation of the General Theory of Relativity.

Dr. Einstein struggled for a year and a half to solve the mathematics
involved and finally produced the General Theory of Relativity. For this
effort he is considered to be a world class genius on a par with Newton.
What is conveniently forgotten is that in order to solve the mathematics he
was forced to invent the idea of "curved space" to make the mathematical
solution
work, it would not work in terms of our familiar three dimensional space!
When this introduction was introduced at a convention of physicists
considering General Relativity, it was accepted with the comment "why
shouldn't we consider space to be curved NOBODY CAN PROVE THAT IT ISN'T".
(Weren't they objective scientists?)

An alarm bell should ring when one examines the conclusions of General
Relativity and of Special Relativity. One does not need a high level of
brilliance or education to recognize that the two theories are incompatible
and, as a result, cannot satisfy the Principle of Equivalence! Somewhere in
the mathematics an error had been made. The existence of this error is made
evident
by the fact that, in a force-length-time system of measurement, there
exists, under Special Relativity, the Lorentz Transformations for Length and
for Time. Under General Relativity, on the other hand, while there is a
transformation for time (the time dilation), there is no analogous
transformation for length. It is the absence of this transformation which
required the concept of "curved space" to make the mathematics self
consistent.

General Relativity was accepted after it "correctly" predicted the time
dilation, the precession of Mercury's Orbit, and the bending of light as it
passed the Sun. What was conveniently overlooked was the fact that the Sun's
field is about 5 orders of magnitude too weak to reveal the error which
exists. (This error could be observed in the vicinity of a neutron star, but
the observation would have to be coupled with a close in orbital observation
to be
meaningful.)

When one examines the mathematical treatment which produced General
Relativity to find the source of obvious error in the theory, it is not hard
to find that error. The mathematics involved the double integration of and
equation in the form:- (dS)^2= (dX)^2+(dY)^2+(dZ)^2-(Kt*C*dT)^2 where Kt is
the time transformation provided by Special Relativity.

Anyone who is familiar with integral calculus will recognize that, to
be rigorously correct, coefficients must be provided for the length terms
(dX), (dY), and (dZ). The failure to include such coefficients arbitrarily
sets them at unity. The effect is, to borrow a term from the legal
profession, the arbitrary assumption of a fact not yet in evidence. Adding
such coefficients does not introduce an error, if they are not required the
mathematical solution will set them at unity and no harm will be done. If
they are required, the solution will either be in error or will be
impossible (as was the case with General Relativity). Unfortunately, instead
of correcting this error, Dr. Einstein resorted to the fakery of "curved
space"! For the derivation of General
Relativity to have been rigorous, the equation to be integrated should have
been written: (dS)^2= (Kx*dX)^2+(Ky*dY)^2+(Kz*dZ)^2-(Kt*C*dT)^2 While
separate coefficients for X, Y, and Z are required for rigor, it is not
unreasonable to assume that space is isotropic and set Kx, Ky, and Kz are
equal and set them equal to K. If this had been done, General Relativity
would have yielded its result in terms of our normal three dimensional
Euclidean Space.

The existence of this error is evident in the difficulty in reconciling
General Relativity with Quantum Theory without mathematically resorting to
fictitious extra dimensions (eleven dimensional space seems to be currently
in vogue). When one corrects the information provided by General Relativity,
which has been derived independently by two other independent methods, an
entirely different picture of reality emerges. Energy is found to be
conserved in the absolute sense, the source of the force of gravity is
revealed, and our cosmological observations are provided with a clear
explanation. It shows that the "big bang" origin of our universe never
happened. As observed from the inside of a gravitationally collapsing
object, the object appears to contract until a radius of four times the
horizon radius is reached and then is observed to expand to an infinite
radius as its absolute radius contracts to the horizon radius. Gravity is
revealed to be a force resulting from the release of mass energy due to the
contraction of matter as a result of a reduction of elevation. The subject
is treated in detail in
http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm.

The source material for this posting may be found in
http://einsteinhoax.com/hoax.htm (1997); http://einsteinhoax.com/gravity.htm
(1987); and http://einsteinhoax.com/relcor.htm (1997). EVERYTHING WHICH WE
ACCEPT AS TRUE MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE WE HAVE ACCEPTED AS
TRUE, IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH ALL OBSERVATIONS, AND IT MUST BE
MATHEMATICALLY VIABLE. PRESENT TEACHINGS DO NOT ALWAYS MEET THIS
REQUIREMENT. THE WORLD IS ENTITLED TO A HIGHER STANDARD OF WORKMANSHIP FROM
THOSE IT HAS GRANTED WORLD CLASS STATUS.

All of the Newsposts made by this site may be viewed at the
http://einsteinhoax.com/postinglog.htm.

Please make any response via E-mail as Newsgroups are not monitored on
a regular basis. Objective responses will be treated with the same courtesy
as they are presented. To prevent the wastage of time on both of our parts,
please do not raise objections that are not related to material that you
have read at the Website. This posting is merely a summary.

E-mail:- einsteinhoax@isp.com. If you wish a reply, be sure that your
mail reception is not blocked.

The material at the Website has been posted continuously for over 8
years. In that time THERE HAVE BEEN NO OBJECTIVE REBUTTALS OF ANY OF THE
MATERIAL PRESENTED. There have only been hand waving arguments by
individuals who have mindlessly accepted the prevailing wisdom without
questioning it. If anyone provides a significant rebuttal that cannot be
objectively answered, the material at the Website will be withdrawn.
Challenges to date have revealed only the responder's inadequacy with one
exception for which a correction was provided.

Relativity :: Undestanding SR - examination time.

Author: Nicolaas Vroom
Subject: Undestanding SR - examination time.
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 4:00 pm (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 14

Today you are supposed to do the written examination
in SR physics course 2006.

This is your first question.
Consider the thought experiment at
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/simultaneity.jpg
with the following modification:
A will be equidistant from the two Firing Devices,
but the distance from the track is zero.
(That means Observer A stands on the track)
You are supposed to do this experiment in real.
The speed of the train is 10 km /hour.
Question: Who will SEE the lights from the two
sources simultaneous ?
1. A
2. B
3. May be A, May be B, or maybe neither A or B,
but never both together.
4. Neither answer 1,2 or 3.

This is the second question.
Exactly the same experiment as above.
The speed is again 10 km/hour.
Assume that A sees the light from the two sources
simultaneous.
You increase the speed of the train.
You do not make any changes to the length of the train.
Question: At different speeds of the train will it be possible
to demonstrate Lorentz (Length) Contraction ?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Neither 1 or 2.

Third question
If Yes do you agree that this implies that the Observer A will
not see the lights simultaneous at different speeds of v ?
(The largest difference if v = c)
1. Yes
2. No
3. Neither 1 or 2.

Comments.
1. One of the most important aspects of the two questions is that this
experiment is symmetrical. This maybe does not seem obvious at a first
glance. To explain the fact that it is symmetrical you have to compare
the experiment with the "hep" experiment:
http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/relativity/p112_relativity_8.html
Replace each antenna with two periscopes.
(One towards the front, one towards the back)
Replace each periscope with one antenna.

When you have made the modifications you can easily see
that the "hep" experiment is symmetrical.
Again you let the two ships approach each other but now you get
two collisions and two flashes (instead of one)
The Nostromo Observer at the centre with his two periscopes
becomes Observer A.
and the Sulaco Observer becomes Observer B

For this modified "hep" experiment you can ask the same questions as above.

2. The second question IMO is the simplest experiment to demonstrate
length contraction (if it is real)
There are no clocks involved.

3. The issue is not if the events ARE simultaneous.

4. Readers have responded that if A sees the events simultaneous
than the events are simultaneous in the reference frame of A.
The same for B.
That is true,
but I do not think that this fact or hypothesis will help you
to define what will be the result of question one and two.

5. In principle no mathematics is involved in this experiment.
Ofcourse you can use mathematics in order to explain the results.

6. Make a drawing.
I do not think that that is the correct way to find the answer.
Ofcourse you can make a drawing to explain that not both
A and B can see the light simultaneous, but again that is not
the complete answer on the question(s).

7. IMO the most common sense answer
for question one is answer 3
(i.e. most probably neither Obsever A nor B will SEE them simultaneous)
and for question two is answer 2 (No)

But this raises new questions.

Nicolaas Vroom
http://users.pandora.be/nicvroom/

Relativity :: What is the difference between unit h and unit h = h / 2pi?

Author: socratus
Subject: What is the difference between unit h and unit h = h / 2pi?
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:22 pm (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 0

1.
Many years M. Planck was attracted with the
absolutely black body problem.
If quantum of light moving with speed c=1 falls
in area of absolutely black body and does not
radiate back, then " terminal dead " comes.
In 1900 Planck decided:
to save the quantum of light from death is possible
that quantum of light will radiate with unit h=Et.
Physicists say, that Planck,s unit is one: h=1.
Having this unit h=1 quantum of light flies
with speed c=1.
2.
In 1925 Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck decided that
Electron has its own unit : h = h / 2pi.
Unit : h = h / 2pi shows that electron has own
angular momentum ( own inner impulse).
Thanks to its own inner impulse electron
rotates around its diameter.
3.
These units do not come from any
formulas or equation.
Planck, Goudsmit , Uhlenbeck and Bohr introduced
These units in the physics intuitively.
4.
These units work, so they are recognized.
_________________
The secret of God and Life is hiding in the � Theory of Light quanta.�

Relativity :: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?

Author: Pentcho Valev
Subject: WHO KILLED PHYSICS: CLAUSIUS OR EINSTEIN?
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 8:24 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 7

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000313/00/engtot.pdf
"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. .......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."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"
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: "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."

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html

Pentcho Valev

Relativity :: What's the deal with this kook? Stefan Marinov

Author: dda1
Subject: What's the deal with this kook? Stefan Marinov
Posted: Thu Jul 20, 2006 6:31 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 1

I just found out about this kook, who aparently managed to publish in
General Relativity and Gravity, some OWLS experiment:

http://www.helical-structures.org/selected_articles/Mes_abs_vel.pdf

The crackpot community holds this guy in some great esteem, I haven't
read yet his paper, what is the deal with it and what is the debunk?
Tom, ever herad of him?

Thank you

Relativity :: REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM

Author: Pentcho Valev
Subject: REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM
Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:17 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 7

Popper's idea that theories should be tested only through experimental
verification of final results is misleading. A theory could start with
a false premise (e.g. "Entropy is a state function" or "The speed of
light is independent of the speed of the light source"), then devastate
any rationality in science but at some stage abandon for a while the
false premise and appropriate conclusions deduced from true premises.
Then logical verification of the deductive chains inside the theory is
much more important and in the process the crucial sanitary procedure
should be reductio ad absurdum - something forgotten in the era of
Postscientism. See Problem 7 ("Seeing behind the stick"), p. 47
(solution on p. 54), in

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

Imagine that the mark seen "behind the stick" possesses a pawl which,
released by the back end of the stick, erects so that the stick remains
trapped between the pawl and the wall. If the person who tests the
theory can see the mark, he/she can also see the erection of the pawl
and then the trapped stick as well. How long is the trapped stick? We
have reductio ad absurdum - there are two incompatible answers. In a
normal science the theory should be rejected.

Pentcho Valev

Relativity :: SR F.O.P.I

Author: DJINGATTILA
Subject: SR F.O.P.I
Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:06 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 11

SR F.O.P.I.

Two men on the planet Superstition wondered about the nature of light.
How was it transmitted from its sources? To answer their curiosity,
they used a device called interferometer in an experiment which later
was called MMX, the Magic Mystery Experiment. The interferometer had
two arms of equal length at a right angle to each other. Light was sent
along both arms, reflected by a mirror at the end of each arm and
returned to a common point where it was assumed the two light beams
would interfere. It should prove that all space was filled with
something like invisible honey, a substance that vibrated as light
passed through it.

The two men set up the experiment in their laboratory, positioning one
of the arms in a direction parallel to the motion of the planet through
space and the other arm perpendicularly to it. The light travelling
over the parallel arm was believed to take a longer time than the light
travelling over the perpendicular arm. This was because the mirror at
the end of the parallel arm moved away from the light that was chasing
it while the mirror at the end of the perpendicular arm remained at the
same distance. When the experiment was conducted, the light took the
same time to arrive at the ends of both arms. No honey! Everybody who
had knowledge of these things was upset. Some wise old men then said if
the honey didn't work, it didn't exist. They came up with a clever
ruse to explain the absence of the honey. It was too bizarre to be true
but those who supported it were appointed to important posts and given
honours. The wise men said the length of the parallel arm had shortened
'in the direction of motion' through space and proportionally to
the speed of the interferometer to equalise with the length of the
other arm. This was called contraction. Likewise, time affecting the
device had to slow down. This was called time dilation. Contraction
allowed light to cover different distances in the same time because the
longer distance always reduced automatically to the smaller dimension.
This was called the principle of the constancy of light. In this way,
the wise men pronounced that contraction explained the null result of
the magic mystery experiment.

Contraction however required the interferometer to move strictly in a
straight line at all times to produce the exact amount of contraction
necessary to equalise the length of the two arms. But stationary
locations on earth are subject to five different motions through space:
rotation of the earth, planetary motion, stellar motion, galactic
motion and universe expansion motion. If the equipment is indeed
subject to contraction, the effect of all five actual motions on the
dimensions of the equipment will be unpredictable. This fact was
ignored by the wise men. They stubbornly insisted 'the direction of
motion' is invariably a straight line and contraction applies only to
the parallel arm in the exact amount.

Furthermore, decreeing that only contraction of the parallel arm would
explain the null result of MMX was arbitrary. The same result could be
achieved if instead of contraction of the parallel arm an expansion of
the perpendicular arm had been stipulated. In either case, the length
of the two arms would be equal and the time of the light to travel over
the two arms would be the same as indeed the experiment had shown,
albeit for different reasons. If the formula 'sqrt(1-vv/cc)'
applied to the parallel arm were to be replaced by the formula
'sqrt(1+vv/cc)' and applied to the perpendicular arm, the
experiment would have shown the same result but with different
implications. Instead of parallel arm contraction, time dilation and
mass increase, perpendicular arm expansion, time contraction and mass
decrease would have ensued. But all this was ignored by the wise men.
They didn't even think of it.

Furthermore, contraction and time dilation dictated that the speed of
light had to be constant under any condition. As an example, starting
from the same point in the universe and moving in the same direction,
two spaceships travelling at 50000m/sec and 100000m/sec respectively
would be overtaken at the same time by a light beam sent after them
some time later. This paradox was explained that 'at the same time'
did not mean 'at the same time', using circular arguments.

The findings of the magic mystery experiment were applied to every
object in the universe. The length and clock rate of every object
depended on its speed. The observed dimensions and times however never
changed if the observer had the same speed as the observed object
because his measuring rods and clocks would also change with the new
speed. If however the object was measured by an observer travelling at
a different speed, this observer would measure the dimensions of and on
the other object according to his own rods and the clock rate according
to his own clocks.

Anybody doubting the decrees of the wise old men was excluded from
Sanctus Religio, the Faith Of Pure Illogic, SR F.O.P.I. However, there
remained a small group of individuals who had the capacity to think
clearly and freely. They asked questions about a physical object, the
cube. The dimensions of the cube were 100m x 100m x 100m on
Superstition. In their minds, the thinkers sent it to a star in the
universe as a spaceship. As it travelled away, its length and measuring
sticks according to SR F.O.P.I. would contract and its time and clocks
would slow down. As an example, a distance of one meter measured on the
cube on Superstition would be reduced to 90cm and a second to 900
milliseconds as it sped away at a certain speed.

What were the real dimensions of the cube in flight in this example?
Observers on the cube (the cubists) measured them to be 100x100x100m.
Observers on Superstition (the superstitious) would insist on
90x100x100m. The cubists could see a light signal sent from a corner of
the cube to the opposite corner parallel to the direction of motion
arriving at the same time as one sent to the opposite corner on a
perpendicular path. According to SR F.O.P.I., anyone on Superstition
would make the same observation despite the length of the cube having
been reduced to 90m while width and height remained at 100m. How could
the speed of light be constant under all conditions and yet cover
different distances in the same time? Well, the dogma of the constancy
of light demanded it and the facts had to conform to it. Again,
circular arguments, spurious assertions and vague references to
experiments which at best were inconclusive, at worst misrepresented
were used to prove it.

The thinkers asked how long were the measuring rods on the cube as it
moved through space, 90cm or 1m? If aligned in the direction of motion,
were they 90cm long but 1m long if aligned perpendicular to the motion?
At any other alignment between the parallel and perpendicular axis
would they be differently sized, according to the angle? What if the
speed changed? Would the size of a rod not depend on this speed as well
as on the alignment towards the parallel axis? How many differently
calibrated rods were necessary to measure everything on the cube at any
time and under any condition? Or was there only one rod which changed
invisibly in real length as it was moved around inside the cube or the
cube changed speed? What was the force that caused the change and how
was it controlled?

Time dilation was just as contentious as contraction. On Superstition,
a second was exactly one second long. However, at the given speed in
our example, a second anywhere inside the moving cube, as measured from
Superstition, was only .9 seconds long. While a meter could be anything
from .9m to 1m, a second was always reduced to .9 seconds everywhere on
the cube. The shortened cube second was sufficient for light to cover
the contracted cube distance of 90m parallel to the motion but not long
enough to traverse the unchanged perpendicular distance of 100m. Again,
the constancy principle had been violated. It was pointed out to the SR
F.O.P.I. gurus. They mumbled something about world time lines, time
incongruities and similar esoterics.

The wise men had also pronounced that the absolute speed of any object
in the universe couldn't be told. While the speed of the cube was
known relative to planet Superstition, the absolute speed was unknown.
It could be less or more than the relative speed. However, the rods and
clocks aboard would only shrink or vary according to the relative
speed, ignoring completely the absolute speed.

The wise men furthermore declared that no observer had preference over
another. So every object with a different speed from an observer would
be seen as having different seconds and different non-perpendicular
meters. Perpendicular meters however remained always the same even
though this fact was only implied; never considered or mentioned.
Generally, it appears that a multitude, nay infinity of measuring rods
and clocks is required on every object in the universe to allow
measuring any dimension on every other object to which it has a
different speed and angular attitude.

The thinkers asked another question: If the cube approached
Superstition instead of speeding away from it, would meters and seconds
increase? The followers of SR F.O.P.I. did not know for sure but said
it made no difference. They decided the thinkers asked too many
questions and hastened to appoint Kommissars to enforce political
correctness in science. Enquiry, discussion and progress were inhibited
but the stability of believe systems remained safe for a long time.

Peter Riedt

Relativity :: Review of Stengers New Book

Author: Bill Hobba
Subject: Review of Stengers New Book
Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:53 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 1

Check it out - heady stuff
http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/vstenger/Nothing/NewSciRev.pdf

Thanks
Bill

Relativity :: Do The Math: Save Gas By Driving Slower

Author: virtualadepts@gmail.com
Subject: Do The Math: Save Gas By Driving Slower
Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:58 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 3

Work = Force X Distance. So obviously it takes more force to drive
faster in a car, and the same distance is traveled regardless of how
fast you are going. So if we reduce the speed limits we will save money
and gas!!!!

Relativity :: QM + GR Observation Equivilence.

Author: paul valletta
Subject: QM + GR Observation Equivilence.
Posted: Tue Jul 18, 2006 3:17 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 1

Is a detector, as part of a QM system, equivilent to an Observer in GR ?

Relativity :: Relative motion from individual motion

Author: kenseto
Subject: Relative motion from individual motion
Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 10:16 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 79

1.Observer A measures the following:
B is moving wrt to him at Vab
C is moving wrt him at Vac
D is moving wrt him at Vad
2.Observer A accelerated for a brief period and becomes inertial again.
3. Observer A now measures that the relative velocities of B, C and D have
been changed.
4. It is clear that these changes are due to a change in the individual
motion of A by acceleration.
5. Therefore relative motion between any two objects must be derived from
the individual motions of the two objects as follows: The relative motion
between two objects A and B is the vector difference of the vector component
of A's individual motion and the vector component of B's individual motion
along the line joining A and B.

Ken Seto

Relativity :: The phrase 'dark matter'

Author: stephen@nomail.com
Subject: The phrase 'dark matter'
Posted: Mon Jul 17, 2006 1:57 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 36

Does anyone know when and by whom the phrase 'dark matter'
was first coined?

Stephen

Relativity :: Space-time and time dilation

Author: Henry Haapalainen
Subject: Space-time and time dilation
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 9:58 pm (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 40

I have proved, that space-time and time dilation are incorrect. I am still
waiting for the first matter-of-fact objection against it.

http://www.wakkanet.fi/~fields/

Henry Haapalainen

Relativity :: PHYSICAL THEORY IN CRISIS

Author: Pentcho Valev
Subject: PHYSICAL THEORY IN CRISIS
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 12:42 pm (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 9

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
"Shatter this postulate [of constancy of the speed of light], and
modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!"
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: "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."

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
http://insidehighered.com/views/2006/04/13/morley
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html

Pentcho Valev

Relativity :: Kirchhoff & Planck = Michell & Hawking.

Author: socratus
Subject: Kirchhoff & Planck = Michell & Hawking.
Posted: Sun Jul 16, 2006 10:28 am (GMT 0)
Topic Replies: 2

The question is:
Hawking radiation theorizes that black holes do not, in fact,
absorb all radiation absolutely; they give off some return radiation.
How does this radiation escape?
========================
1.
G. Kirchhoff in 1859 thought up - an absolutely black body.
( Kircchoff 's vacuum radiation / Max Laue/ ).
Absolutely black body is imagined body absorbing all
falling radiation on it. Quantum of light which will get this area
practically will not radiate back.
2.
The concept of a black hole, so massive, that even quantum of light can
not
to escape from it, was put forward by John Michell in 1783.
3.
It is visible that the Kirchhoff 's model (absolutely black body) and

the Michell's model (black hole) are identical.
4.
Quantum of light which got into area of
"absolutely black body " and practically
did not radiate back.
But it is known, that such condition means" thermal death ".
And in Nature it is not observed.
Therefore Max Planck, studying this area, came to a conclusion:
Such condition can change when radiation of quantum of light
having own internal impulse h=Et will take place.
5.
In 1974 S. Hawking came up with theoretical arguments
showing that black holes are not really entirely black:
they can emit radiation.
6.
Now all of us will wait for " new Max Planck ",
who will prove, that
" famous Hawking's radiation " / A. Sakharov / consists of
quantums of light, which are describe with the formula h=Et.
7.
We have again invented a wheel,
we have again discovered America.
========================
It is interesting for me to know, where the man keeps his brain,
if he does not see, that " absolutely black body " and
" black hole " are identical models?
_________________
The secret of God and Life is hiding in the � Theory of Light quanta.�