View Single Post
  #7  
Old June 27th 10, 12:27 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default THEORETICAL PHYSICS: CRISIS OR DEATH?

Karl Popper used to teach that theories can be refuted by a single
experiment. Einsteinians agree with Popper but, on the other hand,
they have discovered that experiments confirming Newton's emission
theory of light, a theory which contradicts Einstein's 1905 light
postulate by stating that the speed of light is VARIABLE, gloriously
confirm Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2
John Norton (a famour Einsteinian): "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT
IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS
THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts (a famous Einsteinian): "Sure. The fact that this one
experiment is compatible with other theories does not refute
relativity in any way. The full experimental record refutes most if
not all emission theories, but not relativity."
Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute
relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all
emission theories, but not relativity."

Also, Einsteinians find it tedious to constantly repeat that
experiments confirm both Newton's emission theory of light and Divine
Albert's Divine Theory. So they omit Newton's emission theory of light
and constantly repeat that experiments gloriously confirm Divine
Albert's Divine Theory:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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......The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light
postulate."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster
than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the
missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its
speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus
that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to
light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what
the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the
case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that
if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to
each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree
on the same apparent speed!"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042105274.html
"Robert Pound, 90, confirmed a key Einstein theory, dies (...) "People
had presumed that Einstein was probably right" about the frequency
shift, but it was extremely small and hard to measure, said Paul
Horowitz, a Harvard professor of physics and electrical engineering.
Yet, Horowitz said, Mr. Pound found a way to do it."

http://focus.aps.org/story/v16/st1
"Before he worked out the general theory of relativity, Einstein had
already deduced that gravity must affect a light wave's frequency and
wavelength. Light moving upwards from Earth's surface, for example,
shifts to longer wavelength and lower frequency, as gravity saps it of
some energy. But the effect is tiny in earth's modest gravity. In 1960
Robert Pound and Glen Rebka of Harvard University finally succeed in
testing this crucial prediction, and they reported their results in
PRL. Today the so-called gravitational redshift is essential for
understanding the cosmos and operating the Global Positioning System
(GPS)."

http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/Cyb...steinTest.html
"In 1960, Robert V. Pound and Glen A. Rebka demonstrated that a beam
of very high energy gamma rays was ever so slightly redshifted as it
climbed out of Earth's gravity and up an elevator shaft in the
Jefferson Tower physics building at Harvard University. The redshift
predicted by Einstein's Field Equations for the 74 ft. tall tower was
but two parts in a thousand trillion. The gravitational redshift
detected came within ten percent of the computed value. Quite a
feat!"

Pentcho Valev