EINSTEINIANA: FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY

http://bartleby.net/173/14.html
Albert Einstein: "Experience has led to the conviction that, on the
one hand, the principle of relativity holds true, and that on the
other hand the velocity of transmission of light in vacuo has to be
considered equal to a constant c. By uniting these two postulates we
obtained the law of transformation for the rectangular co-ordinates x,
y, z and the time t of the events which constitute the processes of
nature. In this connection we did not obtain the Galilei
transformation, but, differing from classical mechanics, the Lorentz
transformation."

http://bartleby.net/173/16.html
Albert Einstein: "In one of the most notable of these attempts
Michelson devised a method which appears as though it must be
decisive. Imagine two mirrors so arranged on a rigid body that the
reflecting surfaces face each other. A ray of light requires a
perfectly definite time T to pass from one mirror to the other and
back again, if the whole system be at rest with respect to the æther.
It is found by calculation, however, that a slightly different time T'
is required for this process, if the body, together with the mirrors,
be moving relatively to the æther. (...) ...the experiment gave a
negative result - a fact very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and
FitzGerald rescued the theory from this difficulty by assuming that
the motion of the body relative to the æther produces a contraction of
the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being
just sufficient to compensate for the difference in time mentioned
above."

An imaginary creature called "Honest Albert" would have written:

Honest Albert: "Experience has led to the conviction that, on the one
hand, the principle of relativity holds true, and that on the other
hand the velocity of transmission of light in vacuo has to be
considered equal to c+v, where v is the speed of the emitter relative
to the observer. By uniting these two postulates we obtain the law of
transformation for the rectangular co-ordinates x, y, z and the time t
of the events which constitute the processes of nature. In this
connection we obtain the Galilei transformation, but, differing from
classical mechanics, we established the Lorentz transformation."

Honest Albert: "In one of the most notable of these attempts Michelson
devised a method which appears as though it must be decisive. Imagine
two mirrors so arranged on a rigid body that the reflecting surfaces
face each other. A ray of light requires a perfectly definite time T
to pass from one mirror to the other and back again, if the whole
system be at rest with respect to the æther. It is found by
calculation based on Newton's emission theory of light that the same
time T'=T is required for this process, if the body, together with the
mirrors, be moving relatively to the æther. (...) ...the experiment
gave a negative result (T'=T) - a fact very perplexing to physicists
because they had forgotten or did not wish to remember Newton's
emission theory of light. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the false
theory from this difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body
relative to the æther produces a contraction of the body in the
direction of motion, the amount of contraction being just sufficient
to compensate for the difference in time predicted by the false
theory."

Honest Albert's ideas universally rejected in Einsteiniana's
schizophrenic world:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
With Problems and Solutions
David Morin
Cambridge University Press
Chapter 11: "The speed of light has the same value in any inertial
frame. (...) This is a rather bizarre statement. It doesn't hold for
everyday objects. (...) The truth of the speed-of-light postulate
cannot be demonstrated from first principles. No statement with any
physical content in physics (that is, one that isn't purely
mathematical, such as, "two apples plus two apples gives four apples")
can be proven. In the end, we must rely on experiment. And indeed, all
the consequences of the speed-of-light postulate have been verified
countless times during the past century. As discussed in the previous
section, the most well-known of the early experiments on the speed of
light was the one performed by Michelson and Morley."

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! Einstein's 1905 special theory of
relativity was in part a response to this astonishing result. What
Einstein realized was that if c did not change, then something else
had to give. That something was the idea of universal and unchanging
space and time. This is deeply, maddeningly counterintuitive. In our
everyday lives, space and time are perceived as rigid and universal.
Instead, Einstein conceived of space and time-space-time-as a thing
that could flex and change, expanding and shrinking according to the
relative motions of the observer and the thing observed. The only
aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And
ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into
the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are
written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of
light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the
vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of experiments have verified this
basic tenet, and the theory of relativity has become central to our
understanding of how the universe works."

http://205.188.238.109/time/time100/...of_rela6a.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
moving."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einstein's 1921 fundamental dishonesty (nowadays universally accepted
as an absolute truth): The Michelson-Morley experiment shows that the
speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source (that
is, the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's 1905 constant-
speed-of-light postulate):

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921
"The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had
an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity
of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate
system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a
velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the
fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches
of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity
of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it
hold for only one system? he asked.
He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street.
If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the
vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with
the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light
traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved
slower and the principle apparently did not hold.
Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed
that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled
with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the
above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein
asked."

Clever Einsteinians, driven by doublethink, counteract Einstein's 1921
fundamental dishonesty: Before the introduction of the ad hoc length-
contraction hypothesis by Fitzgerald and Lorentz, the Michelson-Morley
experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY showed that the speed of light does depend on
the speed of the light source as predicted by Newton's emission theory
of light (that is, the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes Einstein's
1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate):

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://www.amazon.fr/Introduction-re...dp/B000YZAES4/
Introduction à la relativité
James Hammond Smith (Auteur), Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond (Auteur),
Philippe Brenier (Auteur), Guy Plaut (Auteur)
"Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant aux
lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre les
résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par
exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à
un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la
vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la
lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière
se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à
l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui
d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par
rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une
certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister
sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA
LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT
AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE."

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://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."

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. (...) 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

Einstein's fundamental dishonesty is nowadays a powerful mythology:

http://www.bucknell.edu/x68166.xml
"In the early 20th century, a young physicist came on the scene and
called into question a long-accepted scientific theory. Albert
Einstein discovered that his 17th-century predecessor, Isaac Newton,
while developing the theory of gravity, had failed to explain how it
works. "Einstein saw this as a great challenge that needed to be
addressed," Brian Greene, one of the world's leading theoretical
physicists, told an audience at Bucknell University Tuesday night. "He
gave the world a new theory of gravity - the general theory of
relativity."

Newton failed to explain how gravity works and yet: Did the Pound-
Rebka experiment confirm Newton's emission theory of light or did it
confirm Divine Albert's Divine Theory? Generally Einsteiniana's
priests teach that the experiment gloriously confirmed Divine Albert's
Divine Theory but some teach (just in case) that it confirmed BOTH
theories:

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

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://bartleby.net/173/22.html
Albert Einstein: "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 result hold only so long as we are able to disregard the
influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)."

Einstein's "logic" in the above text: In a gravitational field, the
speed of light "varies with position", that is, with the gravitational
potential. Therefore, if the gravitational potential does not vary
with position (if the field is zero), then the speed of light is
constant. This means that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate is true.

Initially, this "logic" makes believers 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.

In the end the ecstasy gets uncontrollable - believers tumble to the
floor, start tearing their clothes and go into convulsions.

A VALID argument based on Einstein's equivalence principle (Einstein
was well aware of this VALID argument): If the speed of light varies
with the gravitational potential, then, in the absence of a
gravitational field, the speed of light varies with the speed of the
light source. This means that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate is false.

The following application of Einstein's equivalence principle might
prove instructive:

A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an
observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the
observer).

Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating
rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and
speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the
back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).

Is c' equal to c or is c' different from c? That is, is Einstein's
1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate correct or not? No priest in
Einsteiniana would directly answer this fatal question - the crimestop
is absolute in this case:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Still Einsteiniana's priests find it safe to use, in calculations, the
correct answer to the fatal question:

The correct answer: c'c as predicted by Newton's emission theory of
light.

Consider equation (13.2) on p. 3 in David Morin's text:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) (13.2)

where v is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment of
emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception) in the rocket
scenario. By combining this equation with:

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

we obtain THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT:

c' = c+v = c(1+gh/c^2)

which CONTRADICT EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT
POSTULATE.

Einstein explicitly used the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) in the period
1907-1915, then replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2), which means that in
any version of Einstein's general relativity we have c'c.

David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions
David Morin, Cambridge University Press

Pentcho Valev

Combination of fundamental dishonesty and fundamental idiocy:
Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is a consequence of
the principle of relativity:

http://bartleby.net/173/7.html
Albert Einstein: "THERE is hardly a simpler law in physics than that
according to which light is propagated in empty space. Every child at
school knows, or believes he knows, that this propagation takes place
in straight lines with a velocity c = 300,000 km./sec. (...) If a ray
of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the
tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the
embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again
travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its
direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of
course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of
the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can
here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of
light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the
carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here
replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the
required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w
= c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the
carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into
conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V. For,
like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of
light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the
same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are
the body of reference. But, from our above consideration, this would
appear to be impossible. If every ray of light is propagated relative
to the embankment with the velocity c, then for this reason it would
appear that another law of propagation of light must necessarily hold
with respect to the carriage - a result contradictory to the principle
of relativity."

http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/p...lativity3.html
"The important thing to realize, then, is that the speed of light
follows directly from Maxwell's equations which describe all of
electricity and magnetism. And now we go back to Einstein. Einstein's
first postulate is that the physical laws of nature are the same in
all inertial reference frames. His second postulate is simply a
consequence of applying this principle to the laws of electricity and
magnetism. That is, if Maxwell's equations are taken as laws of
nature, then they (and all their consequences) must hold in all
inertial frames. One of the results of this is Einstein's second
postulate:
The speed of light is the same in every inertial frame of reference.
Einstein's first postulate seems perfectly reasonable. And his second
postulate follows very reasonably from his first. How strange that the
consequences will seem so unreasonable."

How strange that this combination of dishonesty and idiocy has been
worshipped as a Divine Theory for more than a century.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev a écrit :
How strange that this combination of dishonesty and idiocy has been
worshipped as a Divine Theory for more than a century.

How strange that your combination of dishonesty and idiocy is spamming
scientific groups with nonsense and stupids rants for more than a
decade?