EINSTEINIANA'S MYTHOLOGY

http://askphysics.com/
"When a medium enters a denser medium from a rarer medium, it bends
towards the normal. This is the observation we have in hand and this
phenomenon is called refraction. Sir Isaac Newton tried to explain the
phenomenon of refraction using his particle theory. He said that the
particles of the denser medium attracts the particles with stronger
force towards it which makes it bend towards the normal. If there is
such a force of attraction, then the speed of light would increase
inside a denser medium. When the velocity of light in different media
was determined by Foucault and other scientists, it was found that the
velocity of light in denser medium is less than that in a rarer
medium. So, Newton's explanation of refraction was proved wrong."

I am not sure if the argument:

"If there is such a force of attraction, then the speed of light would
increase inside a denser medium"

was Newton's but even if it had been, it is quite silly so
Einsteinians should not have used it in their fight against Newton's
emission theory of light (at least the world should not have believed
them). The force of attraction can only increase the speed locally, at
the surface of the denser medium, but then inside the denser medium
this force is effectively zero and the slower speed is determined by
other factors.

Divine Albert was ready to succumb to Newton's emission theory of
light in 1909, perhaps intimidated by the genius of Walter Ritz, but
Ritz died the same year and the immoral mediocrity spilt all over the
world:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_De...e_of_Radiation
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein, 1909
"A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain
fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission
theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I
believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics
will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the
oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following
remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change
in our views on the composition and essence of light is
imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no
longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as
independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

Pentcho Valev

Divine Albert and the Michelson-Morley experiment:

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."

It is true that "later writers" (that is, Einsteiniana's professors)
almost universally teach the lie that the Michelson-Morley experiment
confirms the light postulate. However it is a myth that Divine Albert
was more honest than his sycophants. In fact, Divine Albert devised
the lie in the first place:

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."

Pentcho Valev

Divine Albert lying blatantly (believers fiercely sing "Divine
Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity"):

http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc
K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction...
(...) The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with
clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive
at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data
with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based
on his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise?
To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at
the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the
disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves
whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the non-
rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the
clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at
the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the
rotation. According to a result obtained in Section XII, it follows
that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of
the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from
K."

In fact, Section XII in Divine Albert's book does not contain any
results explaining why the clock at the centre of the rotating disc
should run FASTER than the clock at the edge of the disc. Rather, the
results in Section XII are all based on the Lorentz transformation
which predicts RECIPROCAL time dilation for inertial observers -
either observer sees the other observer's clock running SLOW. The
Lorentz transformation does not predict anything about a system of two
clocks one of which (the one at the edge of the disc) is not inertial.

Forbidden logic in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

By increasing the perimeter of a rotating disc while keeping the
linear speed of the periphery constant, one converts clocks fixed on
the periphery into VIRTUALLY INERTIAL clocks (the "gravitational
field" they experience is reduced to zero). In accordance with
Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, an observer
"sitting eccentrically" on the periphery of the rotating disc sees a
clock at rest situated outside the disc running SLOWER than the
virtually inertial clocks fixed on the periphery. On the other hand,
again in accordance with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate, a virtually inertial clock fixed on the rotating periphery
will be seen, by an observer at rest outside the disc, running SLOWER.
Clearly we have REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM showing that Einstein's 1905
constant-speed-of-light postulate is false.

Pentcho Valev

An attempt at demythologization. Juxtapose the following texts:

http://booklists.narod.ru/P_Physics/...T__163s_.1.htm
Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form -
particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like
particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where
you were probably told something about light behaving like waves. I'm
telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say
that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles,
but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough
to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing:
light is made of particles."

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."

Einsteinians? Any thoughts? No thoughts:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
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."

Pentcho Valev

The lie that both Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and the Michelson-
Morley experiment have gloriously confirmed the principle of constancy
of the speed of light is now an absolute truth in Einsteiniana's
schizophrenic world. Einsteiniana's zombies brilliantly explain that
truth in their bestsellers:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw
pp. 32-33: "Maxwell's equations predict that light always moves with a
velocity of 299,792,458 meters per second, and there is no place to
insert the velocity of the source of the light or the velocity of the
receiver. The equations really do seem to assert that the speed of
light will always be measured to be the same, no matter how fast the
source and the receiver of the light are moving relative to each
other. It seems that Maxwell's equations are telling us that the speed
of light is a constant of nature. This really is a bizarre assertion,
so let us spend a little more time exploring its meaning. Imagine that
light is shining out from a flashlight. According to common sense, if
we run fast enough we could in principle catch up with the front of
the beam of light as it advances forward. Common sense might even
suggest that we could jog alongside the front of the beam if we
managed to run at the speed of light. But if we are to follow
Maxwell's equations to the letter, then no matter how fast we run, the
beam still recedes away from us at a speed of 299,792,458 meters per
second. If it did not, the speed of light would be different for the
person running compared to the person holding the flashlight,
contradicting Michelson and Morley's experimental results and our
assertion that the speed of light is a constant of nature, always the
same number, irrespective of the motion of the source or the
observer."
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."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a
Scientific Speculation
"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://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 2: "The special
theory of relativity was very successful in explaining that the speed
of light appears the same to all observers (as shown by the Michelson-
Morley experiment) and in describing what happens when things move at
speeds close to the speed of light."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Divine Albert and the Michelson-Morley experiment:

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."

It is true that "later writers" (that is, Einsteiniana's professors)
almost universally teach the lie that the Michelson-Morley experiment
confirms the light postulate. However it is a myth that Divine Albert
was more honest than his sycophants. In fact, Divine Albert devised
the lie in the first place:

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."

Pentcho Valev