POSTSCIENTISM: DOUBLE-EDGED EXPERIMENTS

Normally Einsteinians teach that both the Michelson-Morley experiment
and the Pound-Rebka experiment have gloriously confirmed Divine
Albert's Divine Theory. This of course implies that the two
experiments are compatible with Einstein's 1905 light postulate
stating that the speed of light does not vary with the speed of the
emitter. Yet occasionally Einsteiniana's priests admit that the two
experiments are equally compatible with the antithesis of the light
postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of
light and showing how the speed of light varies with v, the speed of
the emitter relative to the observer:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2
John Norton (Einsteiniana's high priest): "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts (Einsteiniana's priest): "Sure. The fact that this one
experiment is compatible with other theories does not refute
relativity in any way. The full experimental record refutes most if
not all emission theories, but not relativity."
Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute
relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all
emission theories, but not relativity."

Clearly in the era of Postscientism experiments have acquired the
property of being compatible with both the statement:

"The speed of light does not vary with the speed of the emitter"

and its antithesis:

"The speed of light does vary with the speed of the emitter"

Also, since at least two experiments are double-edged, any experiment
is presumably double-edged in the era of Postscientism. The
experimental verification of Einstein's 1905 light postulate is
therefore pointless; it is much more reasonable to simply decree that
Einstein's 1905 light postulate be true by definition:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip (Einsteiniana's high priest): "Is c, the speed of light
in vacuum, constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et
Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the
metre was adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by
light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/
s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant":
Yes, c is constant by definition!"

Pentcho Valev

Lunacy generated by double-edged experiments:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) 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."

Magueijo is surely aware of this:

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."

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://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

The explanation "Magueijo is lying about the Michelson-Morley
experiment" would be too simplistic. He is just exercising himself in
doublethink:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

On Oct 5, 12:05*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Normally Einsteinians teach that both the Michelson-Morley experiment
and the Pound-Rebka experiment have gloriously confirmed Divine
Albert's Divine Theory. This of course implies that the two
experiments are compatible with Einstein's 1905 light postulate
stating that the speed of light does not vary with the speed of the
emitter.

Two points, Pentcho, not that you care...
1. The 1905 postulate is a statement of SPECIAL relativity, not of
general relativity. It applies to INERTIAL frames, not to frames at
different gravitational potentials. What you are doing is akin to
applying Newton's 1st law of motion to a case where an object is
clearly accelerating. That is pilot error, not a problem with the
theory.

2. The Michelson-Morley experiment is also compatible with a ballistic
theory of light. The fact that Michelson-Morley's experiment supports
relativity is NOT the same as saying that it supports relativity at
the exclusion of all other possible theories. If you have it in your
head that an experiment can support one and only one theory at the
exclusion of all others, then you just need to correct that simple
mistake in your head.

If it were not for the postscientific schizophrenia, the frequency
shift f'=f(1+gh/c^2) measured by Pound and Rebka would just be a
manifestation of the variation of the speed of light:

c'=c(1+gh/c^2)

predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, in accordance with the
formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

In the era of Postscientism this interpretation of the Pound-Rebka
experiment is a grand secret between Einsteiniana's priests. Believers
should know something different: the frequency shift f'=f(1+gh/c^2) is
a glorious manifestation of Einstein's discovery that upstairs time
moves faster than downstairs:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence
concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies
that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on
top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch
on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When
you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it
will show more time elapsed."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Normally Einsteinians teach that both the Michelson-Morley experiment
and the Pound-Rebka experiment have gloriously confirmed Divine
Albert's Divine Theory. This of course implies that the two
experiments are compatible with Einstein's 1905 light postulate
stating that the speed of light does not vary with the speed of the
emitter. Yet occasionally Einsteiniana's priests admit that the two
experiments are equally compatible with the antithesis of the light
postulate, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's emission theory of
light and showing how the speed of light varies with v, the speed of
the emitter relative to the observer:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2
John Norton (Einsteiniana's high priest): "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY
EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts (Einsteiniana's priest): "Sure. The fact that this one
experiment is compatible with other theories does not refute
relativity in any way. The full experimental record refutes most if
not all emission theories, but not relativity."
Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute
relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all
emission theories, but not relativity."

Clearly in the era of Postscientism experiments have acquired the
property of being compatible with both the statement:

"The speed of light does not vary with the speed of the emitter"

and its antithesis:

"The speed of light does vary with the speed of the emitter"

Also, since at least two experiments are double-edged, any experiment
is presumably double-edged in the era of Postscientism. The
experimental verification of Einstein's 1905 light postulate is
therefore pointless; it is much more reasonable to simply decree that
Einstein's 1905 light postulate be true by definition:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip (Einsteiniana's high priest): "Is c, the speed of light
in vacuum, constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et
Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the
metre was adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by
light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.
This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/
s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant":
Yes, c is constant by definition!"

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
| If it were not for the postscientific schizophrenia, the frequency
| shift f'=f(1+gh/c^2) measured by Pound and Rebka would just be a
| manifestation of the variation of the speed of light:
|
| c'=c(1+gh/c^2)
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0d7o8X2-E

By placing identical light clocks at different altitudes
yet another paradox appears. If the clocks differ then
the speed of light within them differs.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/lightclock.gif

More blatant lies about the Michelson-Morley experiment (or just
exercises in doublethink):

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1011/1011.1318.pdf
Farid Ahmed, Brendan M. Quine, Stoyan Sargoytchev, A. D. Staufferb:
"The great precision Michelson-Morley experiment is beautiful in its
simplicity, but it tests only the constancy of the round-trip averaged
speed of light. So, based on the results of the classic or modern
tests of Michelson-Morley experiment as shown in the in Fig.6, we can
establish the special theory of relativity only for the round-trip
averaged speed of light."

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://205.188.238.109/time/time100/...of_rela6a.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
moving."

http://www.techno-science.net/?ongle...efinition=1711
"En effet, dès la fin du XIXe siècle, diverses expériences (notamment,
celle de Michelson) et observations laissaient apparaître une vitesse
de la lumière dans le vide identique dans tous les repères
inertiels."

http://www.pauljorion.com/blog/?p=9459
Paul Jorion: "Ce que Michelson et Morley parvinrent à établir grâce à
l'expérience qu'ils réalisèrent en 1887 (Michelson la répéterait en
1897 à lUniversité de Chicago où il enseignait désormais), c'est que
le principe newtonien ne s'applique pas à la lumière. Imaginons cette
fois, que vous vous trouvez sur le toit d'un vaisseau intergalactique
se déplaçant dans l'espace à la moitié de la vitesse de la lumière et
que vous dirigez le faisceau de lumière émanant d'une torche d'un
modèle courant dans la direction où progresse le vaisseau stellaire.
Si le principe newtonien d'addition des vitesses s'appliquait à la
lumière émanant de votre torche, elle voyagerait maintenant à une
vitesse égale à une fois et demie celle de la lumière. Or, ce que l'«
expérience cruciale » de Michelson et Morley révéla, c'est que ce
n'est pas le cas : le principe d'additivité des vitesses ne s'applique
pas : quelle que soit la vitesse à laquelle se déplace l'émetteur de
lumière, la vitesse de la lumière dans le faisceau émis est c : 300
000 kilomètres par seconde, ni plus ni moins. Autrement dit, la
vitesse de la lumière est constante (c représente en fait la vitesse
de la lumière dans un vide)."

http://philosophie.initiation.cours....-48902702.html
"A la fin du XIXème siècle, les travaux de deux physiciens, Michelson
et Morley, mirent en évidence le constat suivant : quelque soit le
référentiel utilisé, la vitesse de la lumière est constante, ce qui
est en totale contradiction avec la vision classique ayant cours à
leur époque."

http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/p...at/51relat.htm
Claude SAINT-BLANQUET, Maître de conférences: "Compte tenu des
résultats de l'expérience de Michelson et Morley, on doit renoncer à
la transformation de Galilée."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Lunacy generated by double-edged experiments:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) 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."

Magueijo is surely aware of this:

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."

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://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

The explanation "Magueijo is lying about the Michelson-Morley
experiment" would be too simplistic. He is just exercising himself in
doublethink:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev