A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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

Any Relevant Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old February 10th 19, 10:55 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 6,948
Default Any Relevant Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity

Any relevant experiment (e.g. Michelson-Morley, Pound-Rebka, Doppler), if correctly performed and interpreted, proves VARIABLE speed of light as per Newton's theory:

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

Wikipedia: "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [....] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...te_dwarfs.html

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relat...iers/pound.pdf

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu...re13/L13r.html

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity Vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: V'=V+Vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=V'/λ=(V+Vo)/λ." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html

"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

Einstein "borrowed" his false constant-speed-of-light postulate from the ether theory:

Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Banesh Hoffmann clearly explains that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Newton's variable speed of light (c'=c+v) and disproves the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory and fatally "borrowed" by Einstein.

Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate is essentially equivalent to Big Brother's 2+2=5. Arithmetic automatically becomes insane after 2+2=5 is introduced: no rational activity is possible. Exactly the same happened to fundamental physics in 1905:


Pentcho Valev
Old February 10th 19, 08:04 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 6,948
Default Any Relevant Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity

Two more fraudulent confirmations of Einstein's relativity - the muon lifetime hoax and the pion decay hoax:

Richard Feynman: "A very interesting example of the slowing of time with motion is furnished by muons, which are particles that disintegrate spontaneously after an average lifetime of 2×10^(−6) sec. They come to the earth in cosmic rays, and can also be produced artificially in the laboratory. Some of them disintegrate in midair, but the remainder disintegrate only after they encounter a piece of material and stop. It is clear that in its short lifetime a muon cannot travel, even at the speed of light, much more than 600 meters. But although the muons are created at the top of the atmosphere, some 10 kilometers up, yet they are actually found in a laboratory down here, in cosmic rays. How can that be? The answer is that different muons move at various speeds, some of which are very close to the speed of light. While from their own point of view they live only about 2 μsec, from our point of view they live considerably longer - enough longer that they may reach the earth." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

The lie here is that muons "disintegrate spontaneously after an average lifetime of 2×10^(−6) sec" - Einsteinians call this "lifetime of muons at rest". Actually this is the disintegration time of muons that have crashed into the detector at a speed close to the speed of light and suffer the destructive impact of the molecules of the detector. Comparing this postcatastrophic short amount of time with the lifetime of muons in vacuum or air which have not undergone a catastrophe, and declaring that the difference gloriously confirms Einstein's relativity, is possible only in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

"The lifetime of muons at rest [...] Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay. The amount of time that a muon existed before it reached the detector had no effect on how long it continued to live once it entered the detector. Therefore, the decay times measured by the detector gave an accurate value of the muon's lifetime. After two kinds of noise were subtracted from the data, the results from three data sets yielded an average lifetime of 2.07x 10^(-6)s, in good agreement with the accepted value of 2.20x 10^(-6)s." http://cosmic.lbl.gov/more/SeanFottrell.pdf

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..." http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad...on-rutgers.pdf

The most idiotic "confirmation" of Einstein's relativity was devised by Alväger and is cited by Einsteinians as "unambiguous":

Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "There is another obvious possibility, which is called the emitter theory: the light travels at 186,300 miles per second relative to the source of the light. The analogy here is between light emitted by a source and bullets emitted by a machine gun. The bullets come out at a definite speed (called the muzzle velocity) relative to the barrel of the gun. If the gun is mounted on the front of a tank, which is moving forward, and the gun is pointing forward, then relative to the ground the bullets are moving faster than they would if shot from a tank at rest.. The simplest way to test the emitter theory of light, then, is to measure the speed of light emitted in the forward direction by a flashlight moving in the forward direction, and see if it exceeds the known speed of light by an amount equal to the speed of the flashlight. Actually, this kind of direct test of the emitter theory only became experimentally feasible in the nineteen-sixties. It is now possible to produce particles, called neutral pions, which decay each one in a little explosion, emitting a flash of light.. It is also possible to have these pions moving forward at 185,000 miles per second when they self destruct, and to catch the light emitted in the forward direction, and clock its speed. It is found that, despite the expected boost from being emitted by a very fast source, the light from the little explosions is going forward at the usual speed of 186,300 miles per second.. In the last century, the emitter theory was rejected because it was thought the appearance of certain astronomical phenomena, such as double stars, where two stars rotate around each other, would be affected. Those arguments have since been criticized, but the pion test is unambiguous. The definitive experiment was carried out by Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964)." http://galileoandeinstein.physics.vi...michelson.html

Here is Alväger's paper:

Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region, Alväger, T.; Farley, F. J. M.; Kjellman, J.; Wallin, L., 1964, Physics Letters, vol. 12, Issue 3, pp.260-262 https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...31916364910959

High energy particles bump into a beryllium target and as a result gamma photons leave the target and travel at c relative to the target. Antirelativists do not see how this can refute the emission theory but Einsteinians do. They teach that initially a pion is generated inside the beryllium target and this pion travels at 0.9999c inside the target and decays into two gamma photons inside the target and therefore this pion is a moving source of light. And since the source travels at c inside the target, the gamma photons must travel at 2c if the emission theory is correct but they don't - they travel at c as gloriously predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory!

If the emission theory had predicted that the products of the disintegration of a particle continue with a speed twice as great as the speed of the particle, it would be the silliest theory in the history of science. The straw man built by Alväger & Co is obviously idiotic, and yet the experiment is cited as most convincing, "unambiguous" confirmation of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.

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
Any Relevant Experiment Falsifies Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 July 5th 18 09:27 AM
How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 February 18th 17 11:22 PM
How the Michelson-Morley Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 February 17th 17 03:57 PM
The Michelson-Morley Experiment Disproves Einstein Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 February 6th 17 02:01 PM
The Michelson-Morley Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 January 17th 16 06:06 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:43 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.