A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ETHERISTS LESS INSANE THAN EINSTEINIANS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 16th 10, 06:23 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default ETHERISTS LESS INSANE THAN EINSTEINIANS

ETHERISTS:

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the
speed of light is
constant and independent of the motion of the source and the observer,
is shown
to be invalid. (...) 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.
It is time to reject STR with its incorrect light speed invariance
principle long pointed out by Ives, and return to the Lorentz-Maxwell
ether-based theory elucidated by Ives and summarized by Erlichson."

EINSTEINIANS:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

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

  #2  
Old May 16th 10, 07:09 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
BURT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 371
Default ETHERISTS LESS INSANE THAN EINSTEINIANS

On May 15, 10:23*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
ETHERISTS:

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the
speed of light is
constant and independent of the motion of the source and the observer,
is shown
to be invalid. (...) 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.
It is time to reject STR with its incorrect light speed invariance
principle long pointed out by Ives, and return to the Lorentz-Maxwell
ether-based theory elucidated by Ives and summarized by Erlichson."

EINSTEINIANS:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...s/big_bang/ind...
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


Aether flow over energy as time is central to Aether physics.

MItch Raemsch
  #3  
Old May 16th 10, 09:18 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
yvan Bozzonetti
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default ETHERISTS LESS INSANE THAN EINSTEINIANS

On 16 mai, 08:09, BURT wrote:
On May 15, 10:23*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:



ETHERISTS:


http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the
speed of light is
constant and independent of the motion of the source and the observer,
is shown
to be invalid. (...) 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.
It is time to reject STR with its incorrect light speed invariance
principle long pointed out by Ives, and return to the Lorentz-Maxwell
ether-based theory elucidated by Ives and summarized by Erlichson."


EINSTEINIANS:


http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."


http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...s/big_bang/ind...
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


Aether flow over energy as time is central to Aether physics.

MItch Raemsch


And if I fart, what is the propagation speed of the odor?

Y.B.
  #4  
Old May 16th 10, 04:00 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Darwin123
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 247
Default ETHERISTS LESS INSANE THAN EINSTEINIANS

On May 16, 1:23*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
ETHERISTS:

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the
speed of light is
constant and independent of the motion of the source and the observer,
is shown
to be invalid. (...) 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.
It is time to reject STR with its incorrect light speed invariance
principle long pointed out by Ives, and return to the Lorentz-Maxwell
ether-based theory elucidated by Ives and summarized by Erlichson."

Ives was wrong. He made a prediction about circular optical
cavities. I chapters in a book he wrote about relativity. I
immediately found several errors.
I remember the circular cavity argument best. Ives claimed that a
circular cavity would not show the Sagnac effect They make fiber optic
compasses now that use the Sagnac effect. These are circular, and they
work. There are also some theoretical errors to be used in his
"circular cavity" model. Ives made several other errors.
I also remember his emotional rant against Einstein and all his
followers. It was a lot like yours. He spent a lot of time railing
against those blind followers of Einstein. This did not belong in a
technical summary. So in addition to the scientific errors, he proved
he was not objective.
  #5  
Old May 16th 10, 05:21 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
harald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default ETHERISTS LESS INSANE THAN EINSTEINIANS

On May 16, 5:00*pm, Darwin123 wrote:
On May 16, 1:23*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:

ETHERISTS:


http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the
speed of light is
constant and independent of the motion of the source and the observer,
is shown
to be invalid. (...) 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.
It is time to reject STR with its incorrect light speed invariance
principle long pointed out by Ives, and return to the Lorentz-Maxwell
ether-based theory elucidated by Ives and summarized by Erlichson."


* * Ives was wrong. He made a prediction about circular optical
cavities. I chapters in a book he wrote about relativity. I
immediately found several errors.
* * *I remember the circular cavity argument best. Ives claimed that a
circular cavity would not show the Sagnac effect They make fiber optic
compasses now that use the Sagnac effect. These are circular, and they
work. There are also some theoretical errors to be used in his
"circular cavity" model. Ives made several other errors.


Can you specify any paper in which Ives made such a big error? I don't
recall a Sagnac paper on a "circular cavity" but I do remember that he
was keen on showing that all kinds of variations of Sagnac devices do
work.

* * *I also remember his emotional rant against Einstein and all his
followers. It was a lot like yours. He spent a lot of time railing
against those blind followers of Einstein. This did not belong in a
technical summary. So in addition to the scientific errors, he proved
he was not objective.


What percentage of physicists do *not* make any errors and *is*
objective?

Harald
  #6  
Old May 16th 10, 09:33 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Uncle Al
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 697
Default ETHERISTS LESS INSANE THAN EINSTEINIANS

Pentcho Valev wrote:

ETHERISTS:

[snip crap]

"The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the
speed of light is
constant and independent of the motion of the source and the observer,
is shown
to be invalid.

[snip rest of crap]

idiot

http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)
http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973)
Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf
No aether

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html
Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)
http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
  #7  
Old May 17th 10, 12:32 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
xxein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15
Default ETHERISTS LESS INSANE THAN EINSTEINIANS

On May 16, 4:33*pm, Uncle Al wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:

ETHERISTS:


[snip crap]

"The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the
speed of light is
constant and independent of the motion of the source and the observer,
is shown
to be invalid.


[snip rest of crap]

idiot

http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031
Physics Today 57(7) 40 (2004)http://physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-7/p40.shtml
Phys. Rev. D8, pg 3321 (1973)
Phys. Rev. D9 pg 2489 (1974)
http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/PT_Romalis0704.pdf *
*No aether

http://arxiv.org/abs/0905.1929
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-5/index.html
Phys. Rev. D 81 022003 (2010)http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0287
*No Lorentz violation

--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
*(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm


xxein: Dear Uncle Alzheimer. Please note the difference between the
physic and our relative measure of it (due to gravity and motion of
the observer in the universe).
  #8  
Old May 17th 10, 05:30 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default ETHERISTS LESS INSANE THAN EINSTEINIANS

Initially, etherists' belief that the speed of light is independent of
the speed of the emitter was wrong but not insane: after all, the
speed of all other waves does NOT depend on the speed of the emitter.
The wrong belief became insane when the Michelson-Morley experiment
clearly showed that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the
emitter and etherists started procrusteanizing the reality
(introducing length contraction etc.) in order to somehow vindicate
the wrong belief.

Etherists have always been sane in their true belief that that the
speed of light does depend on the speed of the OBSERVER whereas
Einsteinians, in order to camouflage this almost obvious fact, have
introduced one of the most idiotic statements in the history of
science: the WAVELENGTH varies with the speed of the observer (so that
the speed of light could remain constant).

In this sense etherists are less insane than Einsteinians and have the
right to publish verdicts like these ones:

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/Paradoxe.htm
Maurice Allais: "De là a résulté une incroyable situation sans aucun
précédent dans toute l'histoire : la domination dogmatique et
intolérante pendant un siècle d'une théorie fausse, la Théorie de la
Relativité, résultant elle-même du plagiat indiscutable d'une
incontestable erreur. Les conséquences néfastes qui en ont résulté
pour la science ont été incalculables, l'orientation totale pendant un
siècle de la science dans une voie erronée, et une régression de la
pensée scientifique qui n 'a cessé de constituer un obstacle
insurmontable sur la voie du progrès."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim.../dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy)
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of
original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and
physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of
Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary
paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed
since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity,
and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys
relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and
physics. There is no other book like this available; hence
philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its
publication."
"UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS
EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE
QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL."
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to
respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of
time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these
effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the
Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and
radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz
invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and
the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not
purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-
Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime
include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant
structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian
spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this
picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is
uniquely decomposable into space and time."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

ETHERISTS:

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the
speed of light is constant and independent of the motion of the source
and the observer, is shown to be invalid. (...) 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. It is time to reject STR with its
incorrect light speed invariance principle long pointed out by Ives,
and return to the Lorentz-Maxwell ether-based theory elucidated by
Ives and summarized by Erlichson."

EINSTEINIANS:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

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

  #9  
Old May 18th 10, 06:23 AM posted to fr.sci.physique,fr.sci.astrophysique,sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default ETHERISTS LESS INSANE THAN EINSTEINIANS

Science education producing believers:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...way/index.html
John Norton: "We know from later recollections what one of Einstein's
modified versions of electrodynamics looked like. In that version, the
velocity of light is a constant, not with respect to the ether, but
with respect to the source that emits the light. Such a theory is
called an "emission" theory of light and, if the other parts of the
theory are well behaved, will satisfy the principle of relativity.
(...) In Maxwell's theory, all electrodynamic action, generated by a
source charge at some moment, propagates at c from the fixed point in
the ether occupied by the source at that moment. In a Ritz-style
emission theory, all electrodynamic action, generated by a moving
source, propagates at c from a point that moves at uniform velocity
with the source. (...) It was a lovely theory. But it didn't work. We
can only guess what the problems were. But we know he found many.
Indeed Einstein seems to have expended considerable energy trying to
figure out if any emission theory might work. His later recollections
are littered with different reasons for why no emission theory at all
could do justice to electrodynamics."

What John Norton "forgets" to teach is that both Maxwell's theory and
Newton's emission theory of light predict that the speed of light
varies with the speed of the observer whereas Divine Albert's Divine
Special Relativity has replaced this almost obvious fact with the
idiotic statement that it is the WAVELENGTH that varies with the speed
of the observer (see below). As for "But it didn't work. We can only
guess what the problems were. But we know he found many", remember
Ignatius of Loyola's principle:

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may in all things attain the truth, that
we may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it a fixed
principle, that what I see white I believe to be black if the Romish
Church define it so to be"

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Initially, etherists' belief that the speed of light is independent of
the speed of the emitter was wrong but not insane: after all, the
speed of all other waves does NOT depend on the speed of the emitter.
The wrong belief became insane when the Michelson-Morley experiment
clearly showed that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the
emitter and etherists started procrusteanizing the reality
(introducing length contraction etc.) in order to somehow vindicate
the wrong belief.

Etherists have always been sane in their true belief that that the
speed of light does depend on the speed of the OBSERVER whereas
Einsteinians, in order to camouflage this almost obvious fact, have
introduced one of the most idiotic statements in the history of
science: the WAVELENGTH varies with the speed of the observer (so that
the speed of light could remain constant).

In this sense etherists are less insane than Einsteinians and have the
right to publish verdicts like these ones:

http://allais.maurice.free.fr/Paradoxe.htm
Maurice Allais: "De là a résulté une incroyable situation sans aucun
précédent dans toute l'histoire : la domination dogmatique et
intolérante pendant un siècle d'une théorie fausse, la Théorie de la
Relativité, résultant elle-même du plagiat indiscutable d'une
incontestable erreur. Les conséquences néfastes qui en ont résulté
pour la science ont été incalculables, l'orientation totale pendant un
siècle de la science dans une voie erronée, et une régression de la
pensée scientifique qui n 'a cessé de constituer un obstacle
insurmontable sur la voie du progrès."

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Sim.../dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy)
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of
original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and
physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of
Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary
paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed
since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity,
and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys
relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and
physics. There is no other book like this available; hence
philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its
publication."
"UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS
EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE
QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL."
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to
respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of
time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these
effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the
Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and
radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz
invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and
the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not
purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-
Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime
include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant
structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian
spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this
picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is
uniquely decomposable into space and time."

ETHERISTS:

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the
speed of light is constant and independent of the motion of the source
and the observer, is shown to be invalid. (...) 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. It is time to reject STR with its
incorrect light speed invariance principle long pointed out by Ives,
and return to the Lorentz-Maxwell ether-based theory elucidated by
Ives and summarized by Erlichson."

EINSTEINIANS:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

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

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
MORE INSANE IDIOTS HERE! vtcapo[_2_] Misc 14 March 11th 09 06:49 PM
MORE INSANE IDIOTS HERE! namekuseijin Misc 3 March 4th 09 11:02 AM
Is OM insane? P. Maxson History 2 July 1st 04 04:52 AM
Insane Rover Idea Dav1936531 Astronomy Misc 3 March 18th 04 10:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.