TRUTH IN EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD

The Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the prediction of Newton's
emission theory of light: the speed of light is VARIABLE and obeys the
equation c'=c+v, where c is the speed of light relative to the light
source and v is the speed of the light source relative to the obsever.
Accordinly, the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes Einstein's 1905
light postulate which states that the speed of light is CONSTANT,
independent of the speed of the light source and obeying the equation
c'=c. If one strongly wishes to procrusteanize the negative result of
the Michelson-Morley experiment to fit Divine Albert's Divine Special
Relativity, one should introduce, ad hoc, Divine Miracles - time
dilation, length contraction etc. That is the truth, and, somewhat
paradoxically, this truth IS taught in Einstein zombie world:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? 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. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

Yet one should not be misled: people that John Norton calls "later
writers" are in fact countless silly Einsteinians who, by repeating
the lie countless times, have converted the truth into something
useful for clever Einsteinians' careers but for nothing else:

http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/
"The American physicists Michelson and Morley brought the mechanistic
worldview into even more trouble. In an experiment, which was designed
to measure the velocity of the earth, they found that the speed of
light is constant, contrary to what they had expected. They found this
characteristic of light to be in disagreement with the Galilean
velocity addition formula v'=v1+v2, which means their observation
contradicted classical mechanics. Einstein changes everything."

http://admission.case.edu/admissions...ws_archive.asp
"While in Cleveland, Hawking will receive the Michelson-Morley Award
for his outstanding contributions to science. The Michelson-Morley
experiment took place at the Case Institute of Technology in 1887,
where Albert Michelson and Edward Morley proved that the speed of
light is constant, independent by its direction or the speed of its
source, discoveries later reflected in Albert Einstein’s theory of
relativity."

http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc...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."

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

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smoo...t06_index.html
George Smoot: "I have often wondered what special abilities and
circumstances led Einstein to his breakthroughs in the miracle year of
1905. When I taught special relativity to my physics students at
Berkeley, I tended, like many of my colleagues, to follow a well-worn
path: first, the Michelson-Morley experiment ("The most important
thing that ever happened in Cleveland"), with its null result on the
motion of Earth through the so-called luminerifous aether (thought to
be the medium carrying light waves) and its demonstration that the
speed of light is constant."

Pentcho Valev

On 16 Aug, 09:23, Pentcho Valev wrote:

snip - endless variations on the same old material!


If anybody want proof of the problem then I guess Valev's 14,800+
postings – including 809 in July 2008 at an average of 26 per day -
might be enough!


Valev, posting so many minor variations of the same material would
seem to prove this!


Martin Nicholson
Daventry, UK

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the prediction of Newton's
emission theory of light: the speed of light is VARIABLE and obeys the
equation c'=c+v, where c is the speed of light relative to the light
source and v is the speed of the light source relative to the obsever.
[snip crap]

Idiot. NYEKULTURNY.

http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031

Given any achievable velocities V1 and V2 and any finite lightspeed,
Lorentz invariance requires the bound on the relative velocities of V1
and V2 as viewed by any inertial observer in 1 or 2 cannot exceed

(V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2]

This is transformation of velocities parallel to the direction of
motion. For velocities at an arbitrary angle theta,

u_parallel = (u'_parallel + v)/(1+(v dot u')/c^2)
u_perp = u'_perp/(gamma_v(1+(v dot u')/c^2))

****ING IMBECILE

Proper length and proper time are defined as the length of an object
and the amount of time that passes in a comoving frame.

A time-like vector in Minkowski space-time selects a preferred frame
(coordinate system) in which the t-axis points along the vector and
spatial coordinates are orthogonal to it. In this special coordinate
system, the t-component of the vector is called its proper length (or
proper mass-energy when talking of a 4-momentum vector).

OTOH, a light-like vector points along one of the directions contained
in the light cone. The light cone is unvariant under all Lorentz
transformations. Thus, a light-like vector is simply unable to pick a
preferred coordinate system. We cannot make any "proper"
measurements of a photon's 4-momentum.

http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html
Special Relativity for yard apes

http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity

Idiot

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Uncle Al wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

The Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the prediction of Newton's
emission theory of light: the speed of light is VARIABLE and obeys
the equation c'=c+v, where c is the speed of light relative to the
light source and v is the speed of the light source relative to the
obsever. [snip crap]

Idiot. NYEKULTURNY.

http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031

Given any achievable velocities V1 and V2 and any finite lightspeed,
Lorentz invariance requires the bound on the relative velocities of V1
and V2 as viewed by any inertial observer in 1 or 2 cannot exceed

(V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2]

Al is the big idiot here as usual.
Al screams the answer for (V1+V2) is wrong all alone yet
he then uses it inside the above bull**** by showing he thinks
(wrong answer)/[1+(V1)(V2)/c^2] will be correct even
with the "wrong answer" used inside it.
LOL
Poor Uncle Al also does not understand the limitations
of using lightspeed as a measurement and when you use
a limited measurement device, you end up limiting the true answer.
Uncle Al is yet another that has been "tricked" by the light.
In a closing speed condition such as 2 object heading towards
the collision point at 0.9c each would end up with a closing speed
of 1.8c and poor Unlce Al would think he had more time that he really would
simply because of the use of the observational limitation (transform) that
would fool him.


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman

On Aug 16, 6:19*pm, Uncle Al wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

The Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the prediction of Newton's
emission theory of light: the speed of light is VARIABLE and obeys the
equation c'=c+v, where c is the speed of light relative to the light
source and v is the speed of the light source relative to the obsever.

[snip crap]

Idiot. *NYEKULTURNY.

Cleverest Uncle Al, the Bulgarian word for NYEKULTURNY is NEKULTUREN
which is very close to the Russian spelling of course. Now the problem
is that you would call neither John Norton nor Banesh Hoffmann "Idiot.
UNCULTURED" although the "crap" interpretation is theirs, not mine:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second
principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to
be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also
a natural one? 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. If it
was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle?
Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the
one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote
his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev