ILLITERACY IN EINSTEINIANA

Literate Einsteinians know (and teach) that, according to Maxwell's
theory, the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the
speed of the observer. Other literate Einsteinians know (and teach)
that the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the prediction of
Newton's emission theory that the speed of light (relative to the
observer) varies with the speed of the observer. Illiterate
Einsteinians believe (and teach) that both Maxwell's theory and the
Michelson-Morley experiment gloriously confirmed what Divine Albert
established once and for all, namely that the speed of light (relative
to the observer) does not vary with the speed of the observer (the
respective hymns are "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in
relativity, relativity, relativity"):

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/sussk...al-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is
that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always
measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it
is measured. (...) However, over time and many experiments (including
Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend
on the velocity of the observer measuring it..."

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-S.../dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw,
p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results
of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light
should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by
the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face
value by Einstein."

Pentcho Valev

Doublethink in Einsteiniana:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1...notes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the
gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test
particle: in time t is falls a distance (1/2)gt^2."

Then the same Harvey Reall analyses the gravitational redshift by
implicitly assuming that the speed of light is constant in a
gravitational field. Orwell calls this "doublethink":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them."

Of all the Einsteinians all over the world not one could think of a
reason why the statement "light falls in the gravitational field in
exactly the same way as a massive test particle" should be given any
further thought. Orwell calls this "crimestop":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought."

Pentcho Valev

On Dec 10, 3:38*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Doublethink in Einsteiniana:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hsr1...notes12_02.pdf
Harvey Reall, University of Cambridge: "...light falls in the
gravitational field in exactly the same way as a massive test
particle: in time t is falls a distance (1/2)gt^2."

Then the same Harvey Reall analyses the gravitational redshift by
implicitly assuming that the speed of light is constant in a
gravitational field. Orwell calls this "doublethink":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them."

Of all the Einsteinians all over the world not one could think of a
reason why the statement "light falls in the gravitational field in
exactly the same way as a massive test particle" should be given any
further thought. Orwell calls this "crimestop":

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought."

Pentcho Valev




Ok, so you're a troll. Fine. But dude, are you a damn boring troll or
what!!
Common, leave aside your antisemitic anti-Einsteinism and come up with
something new...common, you can do it.

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message
...
Literate Einsteinians know (and teach) that, according to Maxwell's
theory, the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the
speed of the observer.

wrong, look at the Maxwells equations.


Other literate Einsteinians know (and teach)
that the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed the prediction of
Newton's emission theory that the speed of light (relative to the
observer) varies with the speed of the observer.

wrong, no such thing as Newton emission theory.

snip rest of crap

Pentcho Valev

Illiteracy in the Perimeter Institute: Divine Albert can bend light,
Newton cannot:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/en/...from_Einstein/
"This chapter of the video explains that large masses in outer space
bend nearby rays of light (gravitational lensing). (...) The idea that
mass bends light that travels near it comes from Einstein's theory of
general relativity. In fact, Einstein first achieved worldwide fame in
1919 because another physicist, Arthur Eddington, observed light being
bent by the Sun, confirming the existence of this phenomenon. (...)
Furthermore, as gravitational lensing is a feature of Einstein's
theory of general relativity and not Newton's theory of universal
gravitation..."

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.c...dResize=False#
Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."

Pentcho Valev

Illiterate Einsteinians explain everything in terms of elastic
wavelength, a wonderful wavelength that stretches or shrinks so that
illiterate Einsteinians can safely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we
all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity":

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/que...php?number=278
Cornell University: "In the case of distant objects where the
expansion of the universe becomes an important factor, the redshift is
referred to as the "cosmological redshift" and it is due to an
entirely different effect. According to general relativity, the
expansion of the universe does not consist of objects actually moving
away from each other - rather, the space between these objects
stretches. Any light moving through that space will also be stretched,
and its wavelength will increase - i.e. be redshifted. (This is a
special case of a more general phenomenon known as the "gravitational
redshift" which describes how gravity's effect on spacetime changes
the wavelength of light moving through that spacetime. The classic
example of the gravitational redshift has been observed on the earth;
if you shine a light up to a tower and measure its wavelength when it
is received as compared to its wavelength when emitted, you find that
the wavelength has increased, and this is due to the fact that the
gravitational field of the earth is stronger the closer you get to its
surface, causing time to pass slower - or, if you like, to be
"stretched" - near the surface and thereby affecting the frequency and
hence the wavelength of the light.)"

Clever Einsteinians know that, if the gravitational time dilation
introduced by Einstein in 1911 is a true concept, then the wavelength
of light is constant (cannot vary with the gravitational potential):

http://www.relativitybook.com/resour...n_gravity.html
Albert Einstein 1911: "Nothing compels us to assume that the clocks U
in different gravitation potentials must be regarded as going at the
same rate. On the contrary, we must certainly define the time in K in
such a way that the number of wave crests and troughs between S2 and
S1 is independent of the absolute value of time: for the process under
observation is by nature a stationary one. If we did not satisfy this
condition, we should arrive at a definition of time by the application
of which time would merge explicitly into the laws of nature, and this
would certainly be unnatural and unpractical. Therefore the two clocks
in S1 and S2 do not both give the "time" correctly. If we measure time
in S1 with the clock U, then we must measure time in S2 with a clock
which goes 1+phi/c^2 times more slowly than the clock U when compared
with U at one and the same place. For when measured by such a clock
the frequency of the ray of light which is considered above is at its
emission in S2 (...) equal to the frequency v1 of the same ray of
light on its arrival in S1. This has a consequence which is of
fundamental importance for our theory. For if we measure the velocity
of light at different places in the accelerated, gravitation-free
system K', employing clocks U of identical constitution we obtain the
same magnitude at all these places. The same holds good, by our
fundamental assumption, for the system K as well. But from what has
just been said we must use clocks of unlike constitution for measuring
time at places with differing gravitation potential. For measuring
time at a place which, relatively to the origin of the co-ordinates,
has the gravitation potential phi, we must employ a clock which - when
removed to the origin of co-ordinates - goes (1+phi/c^2) times more
slowly than the clock used for measuring time at the origin of co-
ordinates. If we call the velocity of light at the origin of co-
ordinates c0, then the velocity of light c at a place with the
gravitation potential phi will be given by the relation c=c0(1+phi/
c^2)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
"The gravitational weakening of light from high-gravity stars was
predicted by John Michell in 1783 and Pierre-Simon Laplace in 1796,
using Isaac Newton's concept of light corpuscles (see: emission
theory) and who predicted that some stars would have a gravity so
strong that light would not be able to escape. The effect of gravity
on light was then explored by Johann Georg von Soldner (1801), who
calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by the sun,
arriving at the Newtonian answer which is half the value predicted by
general relativity. All of this early work assumed that light could
slow down and fall, which was inconsistent with the modern
understanding of light waves. Once it became accepted that light is an
electromagnetic wave, it was clear that the frequency of light should
not change from place to place, since waves from a source with a fixed
frequency keep the same frequency everywhere. One way around this
conclusion would be if time itself was altered - if clocks at
different points had different rates. This was precisely Einstein's
conclusion in 1911."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~acosta/phy2...elativity2.pdf
Darin Acosta, Professor in the Physics Department of the University of
Florida: "These notes are only meant to be a study aid and a
supplement to your own notes. Please report any inaccuracies to the
professor. (...) However, if Galilean transformations are correct,
then Maxwell's equations must be modified for every possible reference
frame to account for different velocities for the speed of light.
Einstein assumed the opposite: that Maxwell's equations are
fundamentally correct, but that our intuitive Galilean transformation
is not. This led to the following two postulates:
1. The laws of physics, including electromagnetism, are the same in
all inertial frames.
2. Every observer measures the same value c for the speed of light (in
vacuum) in all inertial frames.
The second postulate is really a consequence of the first, because if
Maxwell's equations hold in all inertial frames, then the only
possible value for the speed of light is c."

Darin Acosta,

This is not "inaccuracy", this is just "illiteracy". Of course, no
student would report it "to the professor". Critical thinking in
physics had died long ago.

Pentcho Valev

Einsteiniana's new logic:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-...rinciples.html
PHYSORG: "Special relativity from first principles. (...) Since few
people in the 21st century need convincing that the luminiferous
aether does not exist, it is possible to come at the concept of
special relativity in a different way and just through an exercise of
logic deduce that the universe must have an absolute speed – and from
there deduce special relativity as a logical consequence. The argument
goes like this: 1) There must be an absolute speed in any universe
since speed is a measure of distance moved over time. Increasing your
speed means you reduce your travel time between a distance A to B. At
least theoretically you should be able to increase your speed up to
the point where that travel time declines to zero – and whatever speed
you are at when that happens will represent the universe's absolute
speed."

Texts like this are typical of Einsteiniana and act like the face of
Medusa the Gorgon - on seeing them, intelligent people get petrified.
In contrast, Einsteiniana's zombies start fiercely singing "Divine
Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity". In the end the ecstasy gets uncontrollable - zombies
tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into
convulsions.

Pentcho Valev

Note how desperate Einsteinians are - Einstein's 1905 light postulate,
their Precious, the sacrosanct heart of their money-spinner, is under
threat:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-...rinciples.html
PHYSORG: "Einstein's explanation of special relativity, delivered in
his 1905 paper On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies focuses on
demolishing the idea of 'absolute rest', exemplified by the
theoretical luminiferous aether. He achieved this very successfully,
but many hearing that argument today are left puzzled as to why
everything seems to depend upon the speed of light in a vacuum."

Winds don't bring the exuberant tunes of "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we
all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity" anymore. Rather,
Gollum's song is haunting Einsteinians all through the night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmIHNN0DiGM
"We are lost We can never go home"

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Einsteiniana's new logic:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-12-...rinciples.html
PHYSORG: "Special relativity from first principles. (...) Since few
people in the 21st century need convincing that the luminiferous
aether does not exist, it is possible to come at the concept of
special relativity in a different way and just through an exercise of
logic deduce that the universe must have an absolute speed - and from
there deduce special relativity as a logical consequence. The argument
goes like this: 1) There must be an absolute speed in any universe
since speed is a measure of distance moved over time. Increasing your
speed means you reduce your travel time between a distance A to B. At
least theoretically you should be able to increase your speed up to
the point where that travel time declines to zero - and whatever speed
you are at when that happens will represent the universe's absolute
speed."

Texts like this are typical of Einsteiniana and act like the face of
Medusa the Gorgon - on seeing them, intelligent people get petrified.
In contrast, Einsteiniana's zombies start fiercely singing "Divine
Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity,
relativity". In the end the ecstasy gets uncontrollable - zombies
tumble to the floor, start tearing their clothes and go into
convulsions.

Pentcho Valev