EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

If an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short
container, and if an Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the
bug squashed while the bug sees itself alive and kicking, then the
Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's relativity and refutes
Newton's emission theory of light:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

If an infinitely long object CANNOT be trapped inside an infinitely
short container, and if both the bug and the Einsteinian travelling
with the rivet see the bug alive and kicking, then the Michelson-
Morley experiment confirms Newton's emission theory of light and
refutes Einstein's relativity:

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
"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."

Pentcho Valev

Baez was half-wrong: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...31b8558804bc59

Pentcho Valev wrote:
If an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short
container, and if an Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the
bug squashed while the bug sees itself alive and kicking, [...]

All of your if-clauses here are false in relativity. In part because they are so
poorly worded (e.g. the "while" in the last one).


then the
Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's relativity and refutes
Newton's emission theory of light:

This, too, is false. The MMX does indeed confirm Special Relativity, but it does
not refute Newton's emission theory of light. Other experiments refute it, but
not the MMX.


Why do you bother wasting your time posting such nonsense to the net?
Repeatedly. About a subject you CLEARLY do not understand. If you ever want to
understand relativity, you must STUDY. Your behavior merely shows how utterly
clueless you are.


Tom Roberts

On Jul 26, 3:24*pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
If an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short
container, and if an Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the
bug squashed while the bug sees itself alive and kicking, [...]

All of your if-clauses here are false in relativity. In part because they are so
poorly worded (e.g. the "while" in the last one).

then the
Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's relativity and refutes
Newton's emission theory of light:

This, too, is false. The MMX does indeed confirm Special Relativity, but it does
not refute Newton's emission theory of light. Other experiments refute it, but
not the MMX.

Why do you bother wasting your time posting such nonsense to the net?
Repeatedly. About a subject you CLEARLY do not understand. If you ever want to
understand relativity, you must STUDY. Your behavior merely shows how utterly
clueless you are.

Tom Roberts

Gravity does affect the photon, but why should it?

What exactly is gravity, and how or why does it work?

~ BG

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
news | Pentcho Valev wrote:
| If an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short
| container, and if an Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the
| bug squashed while the bug sees itself alive and kicking, [...]
|
| All of your if-clauses here are false in relativity.

All of your relativity theory mumblings are false in natural physics.

On Jul 26, 5:28*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
If an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short
container, and if an Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the
bug squashed while the bug sees itself alive and kicking, then the
Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's relativity and refutes
Newton's emission theory of light:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

If an infinitely long object CANNOT be trapped inside an infinitely
short container, and if both the bug and the Einsteinian travelling
with the rivet see the bug alive and kicking, then the Michelson-
Morley experiment confirms Newton's emission theory of light and
refutes Einstein's relativity:

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
"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."

Pentcho Valev


Supposedly while traveling along at 'c', looking directly forward or
backward you'd see nothing, however looking side to side or directly
up/down and anything within all 360 degrees worth of that sort of on-
edge or peripheral view of the stars would look perfectly normal,
because only those photons haven't been red/blue shifted. What
exactly does this interpretation mean?

~ BG

An emitter on top of a tower of height h sends light towards the
ground. The light reaches the ground with speed c'=c(1+gh/c^2)
according to Newton's emission theory of light (an equation adopted by
Einstein in the period 1907-1915), and with speed c'=c(1+2gh/c^2)
according to Einstein's final version of general relativity.

In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift factor to
be 1+gh/c^2. In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic
world this experimental result would confirm Newton's emission theory
of light and refute Einstein's final version of general relativity. In
Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the result gloriously confirms any
version of Einstein's relativity while Newton's emission theory of
light is not worth mentioning.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

If an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short
container, and if an Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the
bug squashed while the bug sees itself alive and kicking, then the
Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's relativity and refutes
Newton's emission theory of light:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped in a compressed state inside the barn."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

If an infinitely long object CANNOT be trapped inside an infinitely
short container, and if both the bug and the Einsteinian travelling
with the rivet see the bug alive and kicking, then the Michelson-
Morley experiment confirms Newton's emission theory of light and
refutes Einstein's relativity:

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
"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."

Pentcho Valev

On 7/26/10 11:49 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
An emitter on top of a tower of height h sends light towards the
ground. The light reaches the ground with speed c'=c(1+gh/c^2)
according to Newton's emission theory of light (an equation adopted by
Einstein in the period 1907-1915), and with speed c'=c(1+2gh/c^2)
according to Einstein's final version of general relativity.

In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift factor to
be 1+gh/c^2.




Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound–Rebka_experiment

On Jul 27, 3:43 am, Brad Guth wrote:
....

Gravity does affect the photon, but why should it?

You know, gravitational field 'contains' stored 'field energy'. The
density of this gravitational field energy keeps diminishing with
radial distance from the gravitating mass. So overall, you can view
the gravitation field as sort of 'gravitation energy' field with a
radial gradient of its energy density. A light beam or a stream of
photons, while passing through this gravitation energy field (with
radial energy density gradient), will experience a sort of refraction
which is being interpreted as 'effect of gravity'.

What exactly is gravity, and how or why does it work?

~ BG

It is generally believed that the electrostatic field of 'neutral'
atoms and molecules is totally canceled out by equal number of
positive and negative charges. That is not strictly true unless the
positive and negative charge pairs get completely 'superposed'. In
reality, all neutral atoms and molecules are surrounded by a
characteristic 'residual electrostatic' field, which even-though very
weak in comparison with the original electrostatic fields, still
'contains' a 'residual electrostatic field' energy. The
characteristic mutual interaction of such 'residual electrostatic'
fields is interpreted as the gravity field interaction.
https://sites.google.com/a/fundament...edirects=0&d=1

GSS
http://book.fundamentalphysics.info/

On Jul 27, 8:06 am, ASS wrote:


It is generally believed that the electrostatic field of 'neutral'
atoms and molecules is totally canceled out by equal number of
positive and negative charges. That is not strictly true unless the
positive and negative charge pairs get completely 'superposed'. In
reality, all neutral atoms and molecules are surrounded by a
characteristic 'residual electrostatic' field, which even-though very
weak in comparison with the original electrostatic fields, still
'contains' a 'residual electrostatic field' energy. The
characteristic mutual interaction of such 'residual electrostatic'
fields is interpreted as the gravity field interaction.https://sites.google.com/a/fundament.../Home/book_fil...

ASS

How many of your "books" have you sold so far, Gurcharn?