HOW BLATANTLY EINSTEINIANS CAN LIE

An excerpt from COSMIC HORIZONS: ASTRONOMY AT THE CUTTING EDGE, edited
by Steven Soter and Neil deGrasse Tyson, a publication of the New
Press. © 2000 American Museum of Natural History. To order the book,
call 1-800-233-4830, or go to http://www.amnh.org/education/resour...l/web/buybook/

http://www.amnh.org/education/resour...s_michell.html
"Michell accepted Newton's theory that light consists of small
material particles. He reasoned that such particles, emerging from the
surface of a star, would have their speed reduced by the star's
gravitational pull, just like projectiles fired upward from the Earth.
(...) Michell got the right answer, although he was wrong about one
point. We now know, from Einstein's relativity theory of 1905, that
light moves through space at a constant speed, regardless of the local
strength of gravity."

Needless to say, in 1905 Einstein did not say anything like "light
moves through space at a constant speed, regardless of the local
strength of gravity". Rather, from 1907 on, he claimed that, in a
gravitational field, the speed of light is VARIABLE, not constant. In
1911 Einstein was explicitly using Newton's emission theory of light
in order to show how the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential:

ttp://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....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 / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, 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
and to which we have already frequently referred, 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. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

In 1915 Einstein managed to get rid of Newton's emission theory of
light by replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) with c'=c(1+2V/c^2),
which is tantamount to replacing 2+2=4 with 2+2=5:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf
). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in
the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in
1911."

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
An excerpt from COSMIC HORIZONS: ASTRONOMY AT THE CUTTING EDGE, edited
by Steven Soter and Neil deGrasse Tyson, a publication of the New
Press. © 2000 American Museum of Natural History. To order the book,
call 1-800-233-4830, or go to
http://www.amnh.org/education/resour...l/web/buybook/

http://www.amnh.org/education/resour...s_michell.html
"Michell accepted Newton's theory that light consists of small
material particles. He reasoned that such particles, emerging from the
surface of a star, would have their speed reduced by the star's
gravitational pull, just like projectiles fired upward from the Earth.
(...) Michell got the right answer, although he was wrong about one
point. We now know, from Einstein's relativity theory of 1905, that
light moves through space at a constant speed, regardless of the local
strength of gravity."

Needless to say, in 1905 Einstein did not say anything like "light
moves through space at a constant speed, regardless of the local
strength of gravity".

________________________________________
So far that is correct, as far as I know.


Rather, from 1907 on, he claimed that, in a
gravitational field, the speed of light is VARIABLE, not constant.

_______________________________________
I actually doubt that Einstein would have said that, as it is so simplictic
as to be false.

Specifically, an observer can be in as strong a gravitational field as you
like, but as long as the observer is in an intertial reference frame (eg in
orbit), they will always measure the local speed of light as c.

Have you a cite to Einstein's exact words?

The same lie (the speed of light is constant in a gravitational field)
advanced by Stephen Hawking but he superimposes another lie by
claiming that the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the constancy
of the speed of light (originally, prior to introducing length
contraction, the ad hoc auxiliary hypothesis, the Michelson-Morley
experiment straightforwardly confirmed the variation of the speed of
light with the speed of the light source as predicted by Newton's
emission theory of light):

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newtons theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"

http://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."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

An excerpt from COSMIC HORIZONS: ASTRONOMY AT THE CUTTING EDGE, edited
by Steven Soter and Neil deGrasse Tyson, a publication of the New
Press. © 2000 American Museum of Natural History. To order the book,
call 1-800-233-4830, or go to http://www.amnh.org/education/resour...l/web/buybook/

http://www.amnh.org/education/resour...s_michell.html
"Michell accepted Newton's theory that light consists of small
material particles. He reasoned that such particles, emerging from the
surface of a star, would have their speed reduced by the star's
gravitational pull, just like projectiles fired upward from the Earth.
(...) Michell got the right answer, although he was wrong about one
point. We now know, from Einstein's relativity theory of 1905, that
light moves through space at a constant speed, regardless of the local
strength of gravity."

Needless to say, in 1905 Einstein did not say anything like "light
moves through space at a constant speed, regardless of the local
strength of gravity". Rather, from 1907 on, he claimed that, in a
gravitational field, the speed of light is VARIABLE, not constant. In
1911 Einstein was explicitly using Newton's emission theory of light
in order to show how the speed of light varies with the gravitational
potential:

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....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 / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp
"So, faced with this evidence most readers must be wondering why we
learn about the importance of the constancy of speed of light. Did
Einstein miss this? Sometimes I find out that what's written in our
textbooks is just a biased version taken from the original work, so
after searching within the original text of the theory of GR by
Einstein, I found this quote: "In the second place our result shows
that, 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
and to which we have already frequently referred, 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. Now we
might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of
relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in
the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude
that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain
of validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena
(e.g. of light)." - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) - The General Theory
of Relativity: Chapter 22 - A Few Inferences from the General
Principle of Relativity-. Today we find that since the Special Theory
of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream
science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed
of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

In 1915 Einstein managed to get rid of Newton's emission theory of
light by replacing the equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) with c'=c(1+2V/c^2),
which is tantamount to replacing 2+2=4 with 2+2=5:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf
). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in
the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; 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+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in
1911."

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

You stand on the beach and the wavecrests hit your feet with frequency
F and speed V. You know that

F=V/L

where L is the wavelength - the distance between the crests. Then you
start wading against the waves with speed v. This means that the
wavecrests now hit your feet with speed (V+v); the frequency increases
accordingly:

F'=(V+v)/L ; F'F

Not so, say Einsteinians knowing that, for light waves, (V+v) is to be
replaced by (c+v): a replacement which, if officially admitted, would
mark the end of Einsteiniana (the speed of light varies with the speed
of the observer). Then Einsteinians advance the most blatant lie: the
wavecrests continue to hit your feet with CONSTANT speed V while the
increase in frequency is accompanied with an IDIOTIC decrease in
wavelength:

F'=V/L' ; L'=LV/(V+v)

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

All along believers invariably sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

"DIVINE EINSTEIN"
(No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or B-o-o-
ohr!)
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm

Pentcho Valev

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."


Ahh yes.

If you could find such a "jellyfish" for light; an object that is
demonstrably at rest with the medium through which light travels, then you
would destroy SR.

You haven't actually got a jellyfish, have you?

Let us know if you find one.

the constant is the speed in vacuum, only, but
vacuum is strictly relative (to the refractive index),
as *almost* dyscovered by Pascal.

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
If you could find such a "jellyfish" for light; an object that is

thus:
it seems that all of Russell's paradoxes were illinguistic,
not properly tensed. no barber cuts his own hair e.g.;
he'd go to the next village.

thus:
if you cannot take the heat re M&M,
get out of the frying pan:
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/sample.html

thus:
re "spheres of nanothermite,"
do either of you know the primary use of thermite, and
what it is made of?

thus:
I respect his right to wait til "P3" is out, but
a precis would be appreciated.

and, please, don't just *say* that Michelson, Morley et al go "no"
results,
because they actually got some (small) seasonal anomalies --
that goes for you, two, Uncle Al!

Experimental constraints on Special Relativity

--Light: A History!
http://wlym.com

A temporarily honest Einsteinian:

http://www.lauralee.com/news/relativitychallenged.htm
Question: Jumping off a bandwagon is risky - surely you could have
committed career suicide by suggesting something as radical as a
variable speed of light?
Magueijo: That's true. Maybe I wouldn't have been so carefree if I
hadn't had this Royal Society fellowship: it gives a safety net for 10
years. You can go anywhere and do whatever you want as long as you're
productive.
Question: So you're free to be the angry young man of physics?
Magueijo: Maybe it comes across that I'm bitter and twisted, but if
you're reading a book, the body language is lost. You're talking to me
face to face: you can see I'm really playing with all this. I'm not an
angry young man, I'm just being honest. There's no hard feelings. I
may say offensive things, but everything is very good natured.
Question: So why should the speed of light vary?
Magueijo: It's more useful to turn that round. The issue is more why
should the speed of light be constant? The constancy of the speed of
light is the central thing in relativity but we have lots of problems
in theoretical physics, and these probably result from assuming that
relativity works all the time. Relativity must collapse at some
point...

Like all Einsteinians, Magueijo is a practitioner of doublethink, that
is, in his thoughts, the lie is "always one leap ahead of the truth":

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.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners
of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is
a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the
best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest
from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the
understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the
less sane."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

You stand on the beach and the wavecrests hit your feet with frequency
F and speed V. You know that

F=V/L

where L is the wavelength - the distance between the crests. Then you
start wading against the waves with speed v. This means that the
wavecrests now hit your feet with speed (V+v); the frequency increases
accordingly:

F'=(V+v)/L ; F'F

Not so, say Einsteinians knowing that, for light waves, (V+v) is to be
replaced by (c+v): a replacement which, if officially admitted, would
mark the end of Einsteiniana (the speed of light varies with the speed
of the observer). Then Einsteinians advance the most blatant lie: the
wavecrests continue to hit your feet with CONSTANT speed V while the
increase in frequency is accompanied with an IDIOTIC decrease in
wavelength:

F'=V/L' ; L'=LV/(V+v)

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased. Again,
this phenomenon is due to the fact that the source and the observer
are not the in the same frame of reference. Although the wavelength
appears to have decreased to the man, the wavelength would appear
constant to a jellyfish floating along with the tide."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

All along believers invariably sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

"YES WE ALL BELIEVE IN RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY, RELATIVITY"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ

"DIVINE EINSTEIN"
(No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or B-o-o-
ohr!)
http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm

Pentcho Valev

Other examples of temporary honesty in Einsteiniana:

http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/a...ls.php?id=5538
Paul Davies: "Was Einstein wrong? Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 is
the only scientific formula known to just about everyone. The "c" here
stands for the speed of light. It is one of the most fundamental of
the basic constants of physics. Or is it? In recent years a few
maverick scientists have claimed that the speed of light might not be
constant at all. Shock, horror! Does this mean the next Great
Revolution in Science is just around the corner?"

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." AMONG THE IDEAS FACING REVISION IS
EINSTEIN'S BELIEF THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
than 30 leading cosmologists."

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/31/sc...-relative.html
"As propounded by Einstein as an audaciously confident young patent
clerk in 1905, relativity declares that the laws of physics, and in
particular the speed of light -- 186,000 miles per second -- are the
same no matter where you are or how fast you are moving. Generations
of students and philosophers have struggled with the paradoxical
consequences of Einstein's deceptively simple notion, which underlies
all of modern physics and technology, wrestling with clocks that speed
up and slow down, yardsticks that contract and expand and bad jokes
using the word "relative."......"Perhaps relativity is too restrictive
for what we need in quantum gravity," Dr. Magueijo said. "WE NEED TO
DROP A POSTULATE, PERHAPS THE CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT."

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.mfo.de/programme/schedule...WR_2006_10.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "At the end of the 18th century, a natural extension
of Newton's dynamics to light was developed but immediately forgotten.
A body of works completed the Principia with a relativistic optics of
moving bodies, the discovery of the Doppler-Fizeau effect some sixty
years before Doppler, and many other effects and ideas which represent
a fascinating preamble to Einstein relativities. It was simply
supposed that 'a body-light', as Newton named it, was subject to the
whole dynamics of the Principia in much the same way as were material
particles; thus it was subject to the Galilean relativity and its
velocity was supposed to be variable. Of course it was subject to the
short range 'refringent' force of the corpuscular theory of light --
which is part of the Principia-- but also to the long range force of
gravitation which induces Newton's theory of gravitation. The fact
that the 'mass' of a corpuscle of light was not known did not
constitute a problem since it does not appear in the Newtonian (or
Einsteinian) equations of motion. It was precisely what John Michell
(1724-1793), Robert Blair (1748-1828), Johann G. von Soldner
(1776-1833) and François Arago (1786-1853) were to do at the end of
the 18th century and the beginning the 19th century in the context of
Newton's dynamics. Actually this 'completed' Newtonian theory of light
and material corpuscle seems to have been implicitly accepted at the
time. In such a Newtonian context, not only Soldner's calculation of
the deviation of light in a gravitational field was understood, but
also dark bodies (cousins of black holes). A natural (Galilean and
thus relativistic) optics of moving bodies was also developed which
easily explained aberration and implied as well the essence of what we
call today the Doppler effect. Moreover, at the same time the
structure of -- but also the questions raised by-- the Michelson
experiment was understood. Most of this corpus has long been
forgotten. The Michell-Blair-Arago effect, prior to Doppler's effect,
is entirely unknown to physicists and historians. As to the influence
of gravitation on light, the story was very superficially known but
had never been studied in any detail. Moreover, the existence of a
theory dealing with light, relativity and gravitation, embedded in
Newton's Principia was completely ignored by physicists and by
historians as well. But it was a simple and natural way to deal with
the question of light, relativity (and gravitation) in a Newtonian
context."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

A temporarily honest Einsteinian:

http://www.lauralee.com/news/relativitychallenged.htm
Question: Jumping off a bandwagon is risky - surely you could have
committed career suicide by suggesting something as radical as a
variable speed of light?
Magueijo: That's true. Maybe I wouldn't have been so carefree if I
hadn't had this Royal Society fellowship: it gives a safety net for 10
years. You can go anywhere and do whatever you want as long as you're
productive.
Question: So you're free to be the angry young man of physics?
Magueijo: Maybe it comes across that I'm bitter and twisted, but if
you're reading a book, the body language is lost. You're talking to me
face to face: you can see I'm really playing with all this. I'm not an
angry young man, I'm just being honest. There's no hard feelings. I
may say offensive things, but everything is very good natured.
Question: So why should the speed of light vary?
Magueijo: It's more useful to turn that round. The issue is more why
should the speed of light be constant? The constancy of the speed of
light is the central thing in relativity but we have lots of problems
in theoretical physics, and these probably result from assuming that
relativity works all the time. Relativity must collapse at some
point...

Like all Einsteinians, Magueijo is a practitioner of doublethink, that
is, in his thoughts, the lie is "always one leap ahead of the truth":

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.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners
of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is
a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the
best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest
from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the
understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the
less sane."

Pentcho Valev

you and Eric Blair win;
I won't reply to your unthreads!

George Orwell: "It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners
of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is
a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the
best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest
from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the

thus:
in other words, frictionless supersolids are like the "currents
in the solid mantle," and frictionless superfluids are like "aether"
--
no thing. there just is no vacuum, dood, as we know
by Pascal's little 1654 experiment -- PLX?

what sort of verifiable experiment do *you* have,
for your so-called theory?

AFAIK, Newton rejected the aether as the reason for gravity because he
felt it would restrict the motion of the planets. Newton was unable to
comprehend the notion of frictionless supersolids and frictionless
superfluids. Newton was unable comprehend the notion of bodies
interaction with the aether as frictionless. Newton did not realize it
is the pressure associated with the aether displaced by massive
objects which is gravity.

thus:
well, the speed of sound is not any kind of limit,
other than for waves of sound. but,
what can your aetheric wanderings say about the speed of light, or
any other phenomenon? (yeah, I see that you think that
you have created a theory of gravity; yeeha .-)

thus:
in his little essay, Fitz confuzed "bending of red"
(wavelength-dependent refraction)
with the "doppler" redshift (if it is due to velocity-away-from-us, or
to *acceleration* away from us -- cancel the programme du space ?!?)

thus quoth:
I came upon the Alpher, Bethe, Gamow piece in the course of pursuing
the trail of the nuclear hypothesis developed by my dear friend and
former collaborator, University of Chicago physical chemist and
physicist Dr. Robert J. Moon. Moon was the brilliant student of that
same Harkins who, for several decades, beginning about the time of
World War I, took the point against the reductionist school of atomic
and nuclear physics led by Rutherford and Bohr. We shall return to
that healthy tradition shortly. We first briefly review the story of
the overpriced letter.

caption: Harkins noted that three elements—Oxygen (O), Silicon (Si),
and Iron (Fe)—make up more than 80 percent of the atomic composition
of meteorites. Ten elements of even number make up 97.59 perent of the
meteorites. The extraordinary abundance of just a few of the 92
elements must be a clue to the stability of their nuclear structure.
The data are given for 350 stone and 10 iron meteorites.
Source: Harkins “The Building of Atoms and the New Periodic System,”
Science, Dec. 26, 1919, p. 581

In early 1948, George Gamow, the well-known physicist and writer then
at George Washington University, and R.A. Alpher launched their attack
on Harkins, et al., in the form of a new theory of the origin of the
chemical elements. Gamow, ever the merry prankster, asked Hans Bethe
to join in endorsing the effort, which was published as a letter to
The Physical Review in April 1948.1 Bethe (who as recently as 1990,
told 21st Century Associate Editor Charles B. Stevens that “the only
thing worse than cold fusion is Harkins”) was glad to join in, giving
the paper’s authorship its alphabeticality. We shall thus, henceforth,
refer to it as ABC Humbug.
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com/ar...umbuggery.html

http://www.amperefitz.com/einsteins.blunder.htm
--http://www.canonicalscience.org/
BLOG:http://www.canonicalscience.org/publ...cetoday/ca...- Hide quoted text -

thus:
no; n=4 is a very, very special case,
that required only "infinite descent," and
he did not follow that, one of hsi very few explicit proofs,
with a proviso about the general case. anyway,
the "theorem" seems to have been one of his earliest insights
into numbertheory; might it not?

There is good circumstantial evidence that he did not; specifically,
the fact that he produced a proof specific for n=4 at a later date but
never mentioned the more general conjecture.

thus:
don't top-post, you God-am trollamatic!

yep, JSH is pure Troll.- Hide quoted text -

--les OEuvres!
http://wlym.com

--Weber's electron, Moon's nucleus!
http://21stcenturysciencetech.com

--Stop Cheeny, Rice, Waxman and ICC's 3rd British invasion of Sudan!
http://laroucehpub.com

More doublethink in Einsteiniana:

John Norton, a subtle practitioner of doublethink, referring to the
truth as "the consensus in physics":

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...erse-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."

The lie ("mass can stretch or shrink time") published in Natu

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ity-confirmed/
"General relativity rocked the world of physics when Einstein first
published his paper on the subject in 1915. The theory built on the
traditional idea of gravity based on Isaac Newton's laws, but added
fundamentally new concepts like the notion that mass deforms the shape
of space-time. This means that objects and even light that move
through space near a large mass will travel on a curved path.
Furthermore, it means that mass can stretch or shrink time as well."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners
of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is
a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the
best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest
from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the
understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the
less sane."

Pentcho Valev