How Blatantly Einsteinians Can Lie

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswi...-finally-fail/
Ethan Siegel: "Newton’s theory predicted, if we want to be literal about it, that starlight would not deflect at all when it passed by the Sun, since light is massless. But if you assigned light a mass based on Einstein’s E = mc^2 (or m = E/c^2), you could find that starlight should deflect by 0.87″ when it passed by the Sun’s extreme outer limit. For a contrast, though, Einstein’s theory gave twice that amount: 1.75″ of deflection."

It is not at all clear why Siegel is lying so blatantly - everybody knows that Newton's theory did predict deflection:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_von_Soldner
"Soldner is now mostly remembered for having concluded - based on Newton's Corpuscular theory of light - that light would be diverted by heavenly bodies. In a paper written in 1801 and published in 1804, he calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by a star... (...) Albert Einstein calculated and published a value for the amount of gravitational light-bending in light skimming the Sun in 1911, leading Phillipp Lenard to accuse Einstein of plagiarising Soldner's result. Lenard's accusation against Einstein is usually considered to have been at least partly motivated by Lenard's Nazi sympathies and his enthusiasm for the Deutsche Physik movement. At the time, Einstein may well have been genuinely unaware of Soldner's work, or he may have considered his own calculations to be independent and free-standing, requiring no references to earlier research. Einstein's 1911 calculation was based on the idea of gravitational time dilation. In any case, Einstein's subsequent 1915 general theory of relativity argued that all these calculations had been incomplete, and that the "classic" Newtonian arguments, combined with light-bending effects due to gravitational time dilation, gave a combined prediction that was twice as high as the earlier predictions."

Kip Thorne, the next Nobel prize winner, is lying as blatantly as Ethan Siegel:

http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcont...ss-proceedings
Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity."

Pentcho Valev

Today's Einsteinians are crafty cheats but they are amateurs compared to the Great Master:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Albert Einstein (1920): "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. At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all colours, because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark neighbour. By means of similar considerations based on observations of double stars, the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the velocity of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion of the body emitting the light. The assumption that this velocity of propagation is dependent on the direction “in space� is in itself improbable. In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the velocity of light c (in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school."

In 1920 Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate was already a law and every child at school believed it?!? The Great Master knows no limits.

Ninety-nine percent of today's Einsteinians ("later writers" in John Norton's text below) fraudulently use the Michelson-Morley experiment as support for Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

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."

How about Einstein? Was he honest, as Stachel and Norton believe? Actually the Great Master was the author of the hoax - the following text exposes him shamelessly teaching in 1921 that the experiment had demonstrated constancy of the speed of light ("Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K"):

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

John Norton describes how Einstein's elaborate lies confuse Einsteinians and prevent them from creating a consistent mythology:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...n_Discover.pdf
How Einstein Did Not Discover, John D. Norton, Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh

This text is particularly telling:

John Norton: "7. Behind Einstein’s Chasing a Light Beam Thought Experiment. These cartoonish impersonations of Einstein’s thought experiment are possible because Einstein’s account of the thought experiment is brief, cryptic and puzzling. First, the events recounted happened in late 1895 or early 1896. Yet Einstein mentions Maxwell’s equations, the key equations of the 19th century electrodynamics. He did not learn them until his university studies around 1898. Einstein’s first report of the thought experiment in his own writings comes in 1946. The thought experiment does not appear in the 1905 special relativity paper, in any later writings prior to 1946 or in correspondence. Second, unlike the luminous clarity of Einstein’s other thought experiments, it is not at all clear how this thought experiment works. In the dominant theories of the late nineteenth century, light propagates as a wave in a medium, the luminiferous ether. It was an entirely uncontroversial result in the theory that, in a frame of reference that moved with the light, the wave would be static."

Pentcho Valev

Vijay Balasubramanian is blatantly lying; Lee Smolin, Carlo Rovelly, David Albert and Jim Holt wholeheartedly agree:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7m2KK8rOTBE
Vijay Balasubramanian (0:38): "So special relativity basically was a system invented by Einstein to account for the fact that experiments showed that the speed of light was constant to all observers."

There were no such experiments of course:

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-S.../dp/048668895X
Introduction to Special Relativity, James H. Smith, p. 42: "We must emphasize that at the time Einstein proposed it [his second postulate], there was no direct experimental evidence whatever for the speed of light being independent of the speed of its source. He postulated it out of logical necessity."

Actually, prior to 1905, the experimental evidence had shown variability, not constancy, of the speed of light. Below clever Einsteinians explain that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirms the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refutes the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by the immobile ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, 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."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Pentcho Valev

Shameless idolatry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jkv1CeKiUds
BBC Documentary - Secrets Inside Einstein's Mind

My comment on YouTube:

At 6:46 Einsteinians start explaining that, according to Maxwell's 19th century theory, the speed of light was the same for all observers (did not depend on the speed of the observer). This is a blatant lie - at least one of the narrators in this BBC documentary, John Norton, knows the truth (but has found it profitable not to expose the lie):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

How can the BBC allow such doublethink to be broadcast?

Pentcho Valev