DIVINE ALBERT AND NEWTON THE VILLAIN

If it had not been for Newton the Villain, Divine Albert would not
have procrusteanized Nature into conformity with his 1905 false
constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the
constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the
theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for
it in the theory. (...) We can make a few guesses. There is a
"villain" in the story, who, of course, is Newton."

Accordingly, if it had not been for Newton the Villain, Divine Albert
would not have devised the "block universe", the absurd consequence of
the light postulate that has darkened so many bright minds in
Einsteiniana:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/39306
Lee Smolin: "The Newtonian schema is the basis for the claim that time
is not fundamental in cosmology. From this point of view, time is seen
merely as a parameter on a trajectory in configuration space, and not
as an intrinsic part of the physical law. The present moment, the time
we experience, has no place in this description. The philosopher who
does not believe in the flow of time points to the trajectory in the
configuration space and says that the only thing that is real is that
the whole history of the universe exists timelessly - what in general
relativity is called the "block universe" picture. Many physicists and
philosophers have fallen for the temptation of believing in the "block
universe" picture. To them, our experience of the flow of time is just
an illusion."

Newton the Villain was not always successful. He tried to fool Divine
Albert into believing that gravity does not bend light but Divine
Albert was vigilant and gloriously discovered that gravity does bend
light:

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...c-4d44d3d16fe9
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Pentcho Valev

On Sep 4, 1:22*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
If it had not been for Newton the Villain, Divine Albert would not
have procrusteanized Nature into conformity with his 1905 false
constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the
constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the
theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for
it in the theory. (...) We can make a few guesses. There is a
"villain" in the story, who, of course, is Newton."

Accordingly, if it had not been for Newton the Villain, Divine Albert
would not have devised the "block universe", the absurd consequence of
the light postulate that has darkened so many bright minds in
Einsteiniana:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/39306
Lee Smolin: "The Newtonian schema is the basis for the claim that time
is not fundamental in cosmology. From this point of view, time is seen
merely as a parameter on a trajectory in configuration space, and not
as an intrinsic part of the physical law. The present moment, the time
we experience, has no place in this description. The philosopher who
does not believe in the flow of time points to the trajectory in the
configuration space and says that the only thing that is real is that
the whole history of the universe exists timelessly - what in general
relativity is called the "block universe" picture. Many physicists and
philosophers have fallen for the temptation of believing in the "block
universe" picture. To them, our experience of the flow of time is just
an illusion."

Newton the Villain was not always successful. He tried to fool Divine
Albert into believing that gravity does not bend light but Divine
Albert was vigilant and gloriously discovered that gravity does bend
light:

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...?peid=5f32739a....
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Pentcho Valev


Get great auto deals in Pt. Lavaca. It's only a short drive away!

On Sep 4, 8:22*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
If it had not been for Newton the Villain, Divine Albert would not
have procrusteanized Nature into conformity with his 1905 false
constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...806.1234v1.pdf
Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the
constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the
theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for
it in the theory. (...) We can make a few guesses. There is a
"villain" in the story, who, of course, is Newton."

Accordingly, if it had not been for Newton the Villain, Divine Albert
would not have devised the "block universe", the absurd consequence of
the light postulate that has darkened so many bright minds in
Einsteiniana:

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/indepth/39306
Lee Smolin: "The Newtonian schema is the basis for the claim that time
is not fundamental in cosmology. From this point of view, time is seen
merely as a parameter on a trajectory in configuration space, and not
as an intrinsic part of the physical law. The present moment, the time
we experience, has no place in this description. The philosopher who
does not believe in the flow of time points to the trajectory in the
configuration space and says that the only thing that is real is that
the whole history of the universe exists timelessly - what in general
relativity is called the "block universe" picture. Many physicists and
philosophers have fallen for the temptation of believing in the "block
universe" picture. To them, our experience of the flow of time is just
an illusion."

Newton the Villain was not always successful. He tried to fool Divine
Albert into believing that gravity does not bend light but Divine
Albert was vigilant and gloriously discovered that gravity does bend
light:

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...?peid=5f32739a....
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Pentcho Valev


You are all going to a lot of trouble over something as simple of
attaching too much significance to the Ra/Dec system for this provides
the bulk of absolute/relative time,space and motion definitions as it
was Newton's intention to use the calendar based predictive
convenience,(it predicts lunar and solar eclipses etc) to bridge the
divide between predictive experimental sciences at a human level with
predictions on an astronomical scale.

This is not a matter of running around stating Newton was wrong or an
exercise in forensics but rather a wider view of the matter,at least
from an astronomical point of viiew.

Initially Newton the Villain managed to convince Divine Albert that,
in a gravitational field, the speed of photons varies in exactly the
same way that the speed of cannonballs does:

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."

Then in 1915 the situation became unbearable: Divine Albert was still
unable to offer a better formula and outdo Newton the Villain. In
despair, Divine Albert suddenly declared: "The speed of photons varies
twice as fast as the speed of cannonballs and that's it!":

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. 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.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. (...) ...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."

Today's high priests in Einsteiniana don't like Divine Albert's 1915
panicky decision to make the speed of photons vary faster than the
speed of cannonballs. They simply teach: "In both the presence and
absence of a gravitational field, the speed of photons is constant and
that's it!":

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 Newton's 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://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by
definition! (...) Einstein went on to discover a more general theory
of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime,
and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In
the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation
is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern
interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general
relativity."

Believers invariably sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in
relativity, relativity, relativity":

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...4962912264988#
Caltech: The Mechanical Universe - 42 - The Lorentz Transformation
"They [Michelson and Morley] found exactly what they weren't looking
for. The interferometer showed that, regardless of the motion of the
observer, the speed of light is the same."

This is a blatant lie but still the most fruitful lie in the history
of science - it converted Albert the Plagiarist into Divine Albert. If
Caltech professor David Goodstein were a honest person, the above
quotation would be slightly different:

"They [Michelson and Morley] found exactly what they weren't looking
for. The interferometer showed that the speed of light varies with v,
the speed of the light source relative to the observer, in accordance
with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

Divine Albert gets rid of Newton the Villain:

http://ls.poly.edu/~jbain/philrel/ph...tulates&MM.pdf
Jonathan Bain: "From a mathematical point of view, the problem is that
Newton's Laws have different symmetries than Maxwell's Laws. Newton's
Laws remain the same under Galilean transformations, whereas Maxwell's
Laws remain the same under Lorentz transformations. Einstein thought
this was a messy state of affairs and desired a single theory with a
single type of symmetry. He had two options: Either try to force
Maxwell's Laws into the symmetries of Newton's Laws, or try to force
Newton's Laws into the symmetries of Maxwell's. He took the latter
option."

That is, Divine Albert "resisted the temptation to account for the
null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar
Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that
was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an
ether":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

Welcome to Divine Albert's schizophrenic world where arbitrarily long
objects get trapped inside arbitrarily short containers and bugs are
squashed according to some observers but alive and kicking according
to others:

http://ls.poly.edu/~jbain/philrel/ph...tulates&MM.pdf
Jonathan Bain: "This claim says that the aether exists as the medium
through which EM waves propagate and objects physically contract as
they move through it. We'll see that special relativity predicts a
similar phenomenon, but without reference to the aether."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Pour mieux comprendre le phénomène de ralentissement
du temps, il est préférable d'aborder un autre phénomène tout aussi
paradoxal: la contraction des longueurs. Car la vitesse affecte non
seulement l'écoulement du temps, mais aussi la longueur des objets.
Ainsi, une fusée en mouvement apparaît plus courte que lorsqu'elle est
au repos. Là aussi, plus la vitesse est grande, plus la contraction
est importante. Et, comme pour le temps, les effets ne deviennent
considérables qu'à des vitesses proches de celle de la lumière. Dans
la vie de tous les jours, cette contraction est imperceptible.
Cependant, si une fusée de 100 m passait devant nous à une vitesse
proche de celle de la lumière, elle pourrait sembler ne mesurer que 50
m, ou même moins. Bien sûr, la question qui vient tout de suite à
l'esprit est: «Cette contraction n'est-elle qu'une illusion?» Il
semble tout à fait incroyable que le simple mouvement puisse comprimer
un objet aussi rigide qu'une fusée. Et pourtant, la contraction est
réelle... mais SANS COMPRESSION physique de l'objet! Ainsi, une fusée
de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être
entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde,
durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux
bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a
PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

http://www.parabola.unsw.edu.au/vol3...ol35_no1_2.pdf
Parabola Volume 35, Issue 1 (1999)
LENGTH AND RELATIVITY by John Steele
"The Pole in the Barn Paradox. Now we know about length contraction,
we can invent some amusing uses of it. Suppose you want to fit a 20m
pole into a 10m barn. If the pole were moving fast enough, then length
contraction means it would be short enough. (...) Now comes the
paradox. According to your friend who is going to slam the barn doors
shut just as the end of the pole goes in, the pole is 10m long, and
therefore it fits. However as far as you are concerned, the pole is
still 20m long but the barn is now only 5m long: length contraction
must work both ways by the first postulate. How can you fit this 20m
pole into a 5m barn? This paradox is apparently due to Wolfgang
Rindler of the University of Texas at Dallas. Of course the key to
this is relativity of simultaneity. Your friend sees the front end of
the pole hit the back wall of the barn at the same time as the doors
are closed, but you (and the pole) do not see things this way. You are
standing still and see a 5m long barn coming towards you at some
shockingly high speed. When the back of the barn hits the front of the
pole (and takes the front of the pole with it), the back end of the
pole must still be at rest. It cannot 'know' about the crash at the
front, because the shock wave travelling along the pole telling it
about the crash travels at some finite speed. The front of the barn
has only 15m to go to get to the back of the pole, but the shock wave
has to travel the whole length of the pole, namely 20m. The speed of
the barn is such that even if this shock wave travelled at the speed
of light, it would not get to the back of the pole before the front of
the barn did. Hence in both frames of reference, the pole fits inside
the barn (and will presumably shatter when the doors are closed)."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev

The blatant lie again:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?)
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw
p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results
of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light
should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by
the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face
value by Einstein."

Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw, both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and
the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the fact that the speed of
light VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER:

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-l..._CSP_relat.xml
Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de
Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la
vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel
classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un
premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau
référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse
constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si
elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v
si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves
should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got
rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel
at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to
be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a
substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in
"empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound
waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative
to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would
see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed
relative to the ether would remain fixed."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless
account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p.
45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was
vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory:
Kaku: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could
answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected,
he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which
light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his
surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always
traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved."
This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich
Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the
formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results
described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based
Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows
light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a
sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

The fact that the speed of light VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER
is so obvious that scientists often ignore Einsteiniana and refer to
it explicitly:

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/No...6_3/Sec6_3.htm
Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if
either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is
called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer,
imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving,
the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by
the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into
the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more
rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you
were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher
to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE
NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say
that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning
to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves.
In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER
RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel
with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down
at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES. If
you are moving into a wave, its frequency will appear to you to be
higher, while if you are traveling in the same direction as the waves,
their frequency will appear to be lower. The formula for the frequency
that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer -
the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of
the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be:
f'=f(1+Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the
speed of the wave."

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the
velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion
of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in
a given time."

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is
moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves
pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c
+v)/(lambda)."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits
light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If
the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical
analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c +
v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence
the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which
is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo Fo.
(...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is
difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and
continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...4962912264988#
Caltech: The Mechanical Universe - 42 - The Lorentz Transformation
"They [Michelson and Morley] found exactly what they weren't looking
for. The interferometer showed that, regardless of the motion of the
observer, the speed of light is the same."

This is a blatant lie but still the most fruitful lie in the history
of science - it converted Albert the Plagiarist into Divine Albert. If
Caltech professor David Goodstein were a honest person, the above
quotation would be slightly different:

"They [Michelson and Morley] found exactly what they weren't looking
for. The interferometer showed that the speed of light varies with v,
the speed of the light source relative to the observer, in accordance
with the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of light":

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested
in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second
principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do
far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the
particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it.
And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these
particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian
relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the
Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths,
local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein
resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of
particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and
introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less
obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible
with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

http://poincare.et.la.relativite.pag...me.partie.html
Jules Leveugle: "Einstein publia un article en décembre 1907, dont les
trois conclusions principales découlent directement de l'hypothèse de
Planck et de sa théorie quantique : la lumière étant pesante, sa
vitesse doit varier dans un champ de pesanteur, comme celle d'un corps
matériel, sa fréquence doit diminuer comme son énergie h lorsque
s'accroît le potentiel de gravité... (...) Dans un article de juin
1911, Einstein reprit les idées de son article de 1907, qui
découlaient de l'hypothèse de Planck sur la pesanteur de l'énergie.
Mais cette fois il abandonna la relativité "habituelle", d'autant plus
facilement qu'il n'en était pas l'auteur, en renonçant explicitement
au principe de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière. Et cet
abandon lui permit de calculer la courbure d'un rayon lumineux dans un
champ de gravitation, qu'il estima à 0,85 d'arc pour un rayon rasant
le soleil, en appliquant le principe de Huygens, du mathématicien et
physicien Christiaan Huygens (1629-1695), valable dans les milieux
d'indices de réfraction variables. Ce résultat avait, en fait, déjà
été établi par l'astronome allemand Soldner en 1803, en partant de la
théorie de l'émission de la lumière de Newton."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plus-vite-lu.../dp/2100072471
Joao Magueijo, PLUS VITE QUE LA LUMIÈRE, Dunod, 2003, pp. 50-51:
"En cours de route, en 1911, Einstein proposa même une théorie où la
vitesse de la lumière variait! Aujourd'hui, les scientifiques sont
soit horrifiés par cette article écrit par le grand Albert Einstein,
alors professeur à Prague, soit tout simplement ignorants de son
existence. Banesh Hoffmann, collègue et biographe d'Einstein, décrit
ce texte de la manière suivante: "Et cela signifie... Quoi! Que la
vitesse de la lumière n'est pas constante, que la gravitation la
ralentit. Hérésie! Et de la part d'Einstein lui-même."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Initially Newton the Villain managed to convince Divine Albert that,
in a gravitational field, the speed of photons varies in exactly the
same way that the speed of cannonballs does:

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."

Then in 1915 the situation became unbearable: Divine Albert was still
unable to offer a better formula and outdo Newton the Villain. In
despair, Divine Albert suddenly declared: "The speed of photons varies
twice as fast as the speed of cannonballs and that's it!":

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. 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.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. (...) ...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."

Today's high priests in Einsteiniana don't like Divine Albert's 1915
panicky decision to make the speed of photons vary faster than the
speed of cannonballs. They simply teach: "In both the presence and
absence of a gravitational field, the speed of photons is constant and
that's it!":

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 Newton's 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://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the
1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI
(Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre
is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time
interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light
in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short
answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by
definition! (...) Einstein went on to discover a more general theory
of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime,
and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In
the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation
is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern
interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general
relativity."

Believers invariably sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in
relativity, relativity, relativity":

http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel --
He should have been given four!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor with brains galore!
No-one could outshine Professor Einstein --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein,
Professor in overdrive!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming
contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two
principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that
there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light
is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's
version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that,
if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all
inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that
the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or
decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?
Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy
period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this
struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once
more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office
colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT
paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles
with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been
assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was
unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows
one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect
to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other
inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on
Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions
about the nature of time..."

Note that the "moving observer" problem Einstein wrestled with cannot
be solved in this way. In accordance with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

either the frequency and the speed of light vary with the speed of the
observer while the wavelength remains independent of the observer's
movement, as is the case with all other waves, or, if the speed of
light is to remain independent of the observer's movement (so that
believers can eternally sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe
in relativity, relativity, relativity"), the wavelength will have to
vary with the speed of the observer, a variation that is absurd for
any other wave. Only the subtlest practitioners of doublethink in
Einsteiniana have the courage to refer to this miraculous correlation
between the wavelength and the speed of the observer:

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)."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The blatant lie again:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?)
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw
p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results
of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light
should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by
the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face
value by Einstein."

Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw, both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and
the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the fact that the speed of
light VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER:

http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-l..._CSP_relat.xml
Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de
Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la
vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel
classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un
premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau
référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse
constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si
elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v
si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves
should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got
rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel
at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to
be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a
substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in
"empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound
waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative
to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would
see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed
relative to the ether would remain fixed."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless
account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p.
45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was
vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory:
Kaku: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could
answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected,
he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which
light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his
surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always
traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved."
This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich
Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the
formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results
described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based
Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That theory allows
light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a
sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

The fact that the speed of light VARIES WITH THE SPEED OF THE OBSERVER
is so obvious that scientists often ignore Einsteiniana and refer to
it explicitly:

http://www.phys.uconn.edu/~gibson/No...6_3/Sec6_3.htm
Professor George N. Gibson, University of Connecticut: "However, if
either the source or the observer is moving, things change. This is
called the Doppler effect. (...) To understand the moving observer,
imagine you are in a motorboat on the ocean. If you are not moving,
the boat will bob up and down with a certain frequency determined by
the ocean waves coming in. However, imagine that you are moving into
the waves fairly quickly. You will find that you bob up and down more
rapidly, because you hit the crests of the waves sooner than if you
were not moving. So, the frequency of the waves appears to be higher
to you than if you were not moving. Notice, THE WAVES THEMSELVES HAVE
NOT CHANGED, only your experience of them. Nevertheless, you would say
that the frequency has increased. Now imagine that you are returning
to shore, and so you are traveling in the same direction as the waves.
In this case, the waves may still overtake you, but AT A MUCH SLOWER
RATE - you will bob up and down more slowly. In fact, if you travel
with exactly the same speed as the waves, you will not bob up and down
at all. The same thing is true for sound waves, or ANY OTHER WAVES. If
you are moving into a wave, its frequency will appear to you to be
higher, while if you are traveling in the same direction as the waves,
their frequency will appear to be lower. The formula for the frequency
that the observer will detect depends on the speed of the observer -
the larger the speed the greater the effect. If we call the speed of
the observer, Vo, the frequency the observer detects will be:
f'=f(1+Vo/Vwave). Here, f is the original frequency and Vwave is the
speed of the wave."

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the
velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion
of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in
a given time."

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is
moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves
pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c
+v)/(lambda)."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits
light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If
the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical
analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c +
v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence
the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which
is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo Fo.
(...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is
difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and
continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years."

Pentcho Valev