Post-Truth (Einsteinian) Science

Wikipedia: "The speed at which light waves propagate in vacuum is independent both of the motion of the wave source and of the inertial frame of reference of the observer. This invariance of the speed of light was postulated by Einstein in 1905, after being motivated by Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism and the lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism had predicted that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer (is different in different frames of reference):

"That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

The lack of evidence for the luminiferous aether was actually evidence for the VARIABILITY of the speed of light. Einstein took the false constancy of the speed of light from the ether theory:

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

Pentcho Valev

According to Brian Cox, Maxwell predicted that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer and the Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed this prediction (both assertions are blatant lies):

Einstein's Relativity https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpw68rvF4pc&t=152s

Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw: Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), 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." https://www..amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2.../dp/0306818760

John Norton is telling the truth:

John Norton: "That [Maxwell] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

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

Both Brian Cox and John Norton are faithful Einsteinians, one is lying, the other is telling the truth, and there are no repercussions in Einstein cult or elsewhere. How can that be explained?

Here is the simplest explanation. We live in a post-truth world. Brian Cox is teaching the lie without caring about the truth - his life is simple and easy. John Norton is much cleverer - he finds some intellectual pleasure in teaching the truth, knowing that this is totally inconsequential for Divine Albert's Divine Theory. The public - in Einstein cult and outside it - couldn't care less about who is telling the truth and who is not.

Pentcho Valev

Nobody in the history of science has been able to lie as blatantly as Einstein:

Albert Einstein: "Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Does w = c - v come into conflict with the principle of relativity? It doesn't of course and this is more than obvious. This lie of Einstein is equivalent to Big Brother's 2+2=5:

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?" https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orw...hapter1.7.html

Pentcho Valev