CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-9046912.html
"A longtime skeptic about relativity, Beckmann a few years ago
proposed a rival theory of physics which, he claims, fits the known
facts and explains them much more simply than Einstein's. Before
publishing his theory in a book (Einstein Plus Two, 1987) he sent the
manuscript to Howard Hayden at Storrs, Connecticut. Hayden's initial
reaction was near-disbelief that the velocity of light had not already
been demonstrated to be invariant. But eventually he became convinced
that Beckmann was right. In 1988, he devised an experimental test of
Beckmann's theory. His preliminary results support Beckmann, raising
the question whether there are any experimental observations which
require relativity theory to explain them.
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the evidence that light
travels in a wave became overwhelming. Just as sound waves need air to
travel in, so light would need a medium, if it traveled in waves. This
hypothetical medium was called the ether, and a famous experiment by
Michelson and Morley, performed in Cleveland in 1887, was expected to
demonstrate its existence. Since the Earth must be passing through
this ether on its journey around the sun, everyone assumed it would be
possible to detect the ether wind" with a suitable apparatus, just as
it is possible to detect the air from a moving car by putting your
hand out into the breeze. In the 1880s Michelson devised an experiment
sensitive enough, in theory, to produce a measurable effect.
But no matter how many times they tried, Michelson and Morley could
detect no ethereal breeze. (In their experiment, this had been
expected to take the form of a shift in the interference pattern
visible where criss-crossing light rays came together.)
Various explanations for the null result were suggested. Michelson
himself supposed that the ether was "entrained," which is to say
carried along with the Earth. As we shall see, this may have been a
close approximation to the truth. But the entrained-ether theory was
rejected by most scientists. The physicists G. F. FitzGerald and H. A.
Lorentz suggested another possibility: that moving objects contract
slightly in the direction of motion-the contraction being just
sufficient to account for the null result. This was ingenious, but
unsatisfactory. It had the ad-hoc look of an unfalsifiable assumption,
rather like the suggestion that everything in the universe is getting
bigger at the same time.
Then in 1905, in his special theory of relativity, Einstein suggested
a third way of looking at the matter. He proposed a) that the speed of
light is the same in all directions, irrespective of the motion of any
apparatus set up to measure it; and b) that observers traveling with
different velocities would see the same things with different lengths
and durations. This eliminated the need for an ether altogether.
Einstein's famous paper showed that everything could be worked out
mathematically if these peculiar assumptions about the universe were
made.
This was a very odd procedure. Einstein bent" space and time so that a
velocity could be preserved as a constant. But velocity itself is
merely distance divided by time. Discarding space and time as
"absolutes" so that a velocity can be retained as an absolute is as
strange as it would be for a man to go on living undisturbed on the
second floor of his house while the basement and ground floor were
completely remodeled.
Einstein's assumption about the invariant velocity of light emerged
from the turn-of-the-century quandary of physicists trying to account
for the Michelson-Morley result. But if it turns out that there is a
simpler way of explaining what really happened, we should, out of
deference to the simplicity that is preferred by science, discard the
premise that the speed of light is invariant. We should (everything
else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
classical world view of Isaac Newton."

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."

The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer. It seems that Einstein criminal cult are
trying to introduce the emission theory without abandoning Einstein
officially:

http://www.chapitre.com/CHAPITRE/fr/...pel=CHAPIT RE

Pentcho Valev

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


We should (everything
else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
classical world view of Isaac Newton."

Something along those lines is examined in he

On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf

See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"

It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
Galilean transformations between coordinates.

Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.


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."

The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer.


Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?

-- Surfer

Surfer wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


We should (everything
else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
classical world view of Isaac Newton."

Something along those lines is examined in he

On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf

See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"

It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
Galilean transformations between coordinates.

Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.


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."

The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer.


Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?

Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough?

Pentcho Valev

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


Surfer wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


We should (everything
else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
classical world view of Isaac Newton."

Something along those lines is examined in he

On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf

See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"

It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
Galilean transformations between coordinates.

Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.


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."

The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer.


Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?

Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough?

In what way are they relevant?

Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light
to analyse these experiments?

-- Surfer

"Surfer" wrote in message
...
: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev
: wrote:
:
:
: Surfer wrote:
: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
: wrote:
:
:
: We should (everything
: else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
: phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
: time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
: classical world view of Isaac Newton."
:
: Something along those lines is examined in he
:
: On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
: Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
: Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
: http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf
:
: See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"
:
: It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
: compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
: Galilean transformations between coordinates.
:
: Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.
:
:
: 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."
:
: The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
: invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
: relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
: source and the observer.
:
:
: Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?
:
: Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough?
:
: In what way are they relevant?
:
: Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light
: to analyse these experiments?

Yes. Here's one:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mx4dummies.htm
Here's another:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

On 27 jun, 08:04, "Androcles" wrote:
"Surfer" wrote in message

...
: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev : wrote:

:
: : Surfer wrote:

: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev : wrote:

:
:
: We should (everything
: else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
: phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
: time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
: classical world view of Isaac Newton."
:
: Something along those lines is examined in he
:
: On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
: Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
: Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
: http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf
:
: See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"
:
: It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
: compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
: Galilean transformations between coordinates.
:
: Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.
:
:
: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch...Norton.pdfJohn
: 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."
:
: The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
: invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
: relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
: source and the observer.
:
:
: Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?
:
: Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough?
:
: In what way are they relevant?
:
: Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light
: to analyse these experiments?

Yes. Here's one:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...mx4dummies.htm
Here's another:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonde...nac/Sagnac.htm

Hello Androcles. I revised your papers. Have you someone in Pound and
Rebka (P&R) experiment?
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

Surfer wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


Surfer wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


We should (everything
else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
classical world view of Isaac Newton."

Something along those lines is examined in he

On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf

See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"

It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
Galilean transformations between coordinates.

Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.


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."

The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer.


Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?

Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough?

In what way are they relevant?

Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light
to analyse these experiments?

No. Rather, countless papers have been written declaring that
Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka gloriously confirm Einstein's
relativity. Einstein's world is like Big Brother's world:

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
ups.com...
:
: Surfer wrote:
: On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev
: wrote:
:
:
: Surfer wrote:
: On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
: wrote:
:
:
: We should (everything
: else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other
wave
: phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space
and
: time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
: classical world view of Isaac Newton."
:
: Something along those lines is examined in he
:
: On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
: Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
: Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
: http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf
:
: See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"
:
: It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
: compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
: Galilean transformations between coordinates.
:
: Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.
:
:
: 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."
:
: The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
: invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
: relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
: source and the observer.
:
:
: Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?
:
: Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough?
:
: In what way are they relevant?
:
: Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light
: to analyse these experiments?
:
: No.


Yes they have! I wrote one. So did Fox in 1965. How hard is it
to "analyse" the Principle of Relativity?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PoR/PoR.htm

[irrelevancy snipped]

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Surfer wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


Surfer wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


We should (everything
else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
classical world view of Isaac Newton."

Something along those lines is examined in he

On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf

See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"

It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
Galilean transformations between coordinates.

Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.


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."

The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer.


Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?

Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough?

In what way are they relevant?

Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light
to analyse these experiments?

No. Rather, countless papers have been written declaring that
Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka gloriously confirm Einstein's
relativity. Einstein's world is like Big Brother's world:

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?"

That Michelson-Morley is consistent with the emission theory is almost
obvious; all hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult would admit this
when asked directly. When they are not asked however they always sing
the same misleading song:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Stephen Hawking: "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."

As for Pound-Rebka, the analysis is easy. The result they obtained,
f'=f(1+V/c^2), where f is the frequency, is consistent with Einstein's
1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) which is equivalent to c'=c+v. If c'=c+v
were wrong and c'=c were the correct equation, Pound and Rebka would
have obtained f'=f.

Pentcho Valev

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:40:02 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:

...countless papers have been written declaring that
Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka gloriously confirm Einstein's
relativity. Einstein's world is like Big Brother's world:


You have a point. But are you aware of the following paper?

"The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of 3-
Space and Absolute Motion"
Cahill R.T.
Australian Physics, 46, 196-202, Jan/Feb 2006.

There is a related paper he
Dynamical 3-Space: A Review
http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146

Some quotes:

"In 2002 it was discovered that a dynamical 3-space had been detected
many times, including by the Michelson-Morley 1887 light-speed
anisotropy experiment."

"Michelson and Morley in 1887 should have announced that the speed of
light did depend of the direction of travel, that the speed was
relative to an actual physical 3-space."

"It was Miller [3] who recognised that in the 1887 paper the theory
for the Michelson interferometer must be wrong. To avoid using that
theory Miller introduced the scaling factor k , even though he had no
theory for its value."

"By making some 8,000 rotations of the interferometer at Mt. Wilson in
1925/26 Miller determined the first estimate for k and for the
absolute linear velocity of the solar system."

"Such rotation-induced fringe shifts clearly show that the speed of
light is different in different directions. The claim that
Michelson interferometers, operating in gas-mode, do not produce
fringe shifts under rotation is clearly incorrect."


Don't you think this shows that Einstein's world is not entirely like
Big Brother's world?

-- Surfer