EXPERIMENTS THAT REFUTE 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."

Similarly:

THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.

Indeed, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the equation f'=f(1+V/
c^2) which is EQUIVALENT to Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
which is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the EMISSION
theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:
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."

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.


THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.

Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute relativity. The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity.


Indeed, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the equation f'=f(1+V/
c^2) which is EQUIVALENT to Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
which is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the EMISSION
theory of light.

This is just a repeat of the nonsense you continually attempt to
promulgate. The "equivalence" you claim is wrong, and is based on
intermixing various INCOMPLETE ideas and applying them outside their
domains of validity....

Einstein himself abandoned that 1911 equation in favor of GR, in which
it is seen that the equation is an APPROXIMATION that applies ONLY to a
specific and unusual physical situation. Pound and Rebka (and also Pound
and Snider) did not use that specific physical situation. And more
important: THEY DID NOT MEASURE SPEED AT ALL so that equation cannot be
applied to their measurements. shrug

The physical situation to which that 1911 equation applies
involves length and time standards valid at one location
being applied to a measurement far away, rather than the
normal use of standards valid where the measurement is made.



Anticipating Valev's usual childish response as he "stalks" me in this
newsgroup (to which I will not bother to respond): Grow up.


Tom Roberts

On Dec 6, 16:37, Tom Roberts wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote:
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."

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.

THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.

Sure.

Bravo Roberts Roberts. Let us repeat it:

THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.

But this experiment, too, does not refute relativity. The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity.

Indeed, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the equation f'=f(1+V/
c^2) which is EQUIVALENT to Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
which is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the EMISSION
theory of light.

This is just a repeat of the nonsense you continually attempt to
promulgate. The "equivalence" you claim is wrong, and is based on
intermixing various INCOMPLETE ideas and applying them outside their
domains of validity....

Einstein himself abandoned that 1911 equation in favor of GR, in which
it is seen that the equation is an APPROXIMATION that applies ONLY to a
specific and unusual physical situation. Pound and Rebka (and also Pound
and Snider) did not use that specific physical situation. And more
important: THEY DID NOT MEASURE SPEED AT ALL so that equation cannot be
applied to their measurements. shrug

The physical situation to which that 1911 equation applies
involves length and time standards valid at one location
being applied to a measurement far away, rather than the
normal use of standards valid where the measurement is made.

Anticipating Valev's usual childish response as he "stalks" me in this
newsgroup (to which I will not bother to respond): Grow up.

Tom Roberts

You are out of Einstein criminal cult Roberts Roberts. You shamelessly
denigrate the teaching of your brothers hypnotists:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/i6272.html
John Stachel: "Not only is the theory [of relativity] COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF RADIATION, since it implies that the velocity of
light is always the same relative to its source; the theory also
requires that radiation transfer mass between an emitter and an
absorber, reinforcing Einstein's light quantum hypothesis that
radiation manifests a particulate structure under certain
circumstances."

http://ustl1.univ-lille1.fr/culture/...40/pgs/4_5.pdf
Jean Eisenstaedt: "Il n'y a alors aucune raison theorique a ce que la
vitesse de la lumiere ne depende pas de la vitesse de sa source ainsi
que de celle de l'observateur terrestre ; plus clairement encore, il
n'y a pas de raison, dans le cadre de la logique des Principia de
Newton, pour que la lumiere se comporte autrement - quant a sa
trajectoire - qu'une particule materielle. Il n'y a pas non plus de
raison pour que la lumiere ne soit pas sensible a la gravitation.
Bref, pourquoi ne pas appliquer a la lumiere toute la theorie
newtonienne ? C'est en fait ce que font plusieurs astronomes,
opticiens, philosophes de la nature a la fin du XVIIIeme siecle. Les
resultats sont etonnants... et aujourd'hui nouveaux."
Translation from French: "Therefore there is no theoretical reason why
the speed of light should not depend on the speed of the source and
the speed of the terrestrial observer as well; even more clearly,
there is no reason, in the framework of the logic of Newton's
Principia, why light should behave, as far as its trajectory is
concerned, differently from a material particle. Neither is there any
reason why light should not be sensible to gravitation. Briefly, why
don't we apply the whole Newtonian theory to light? In fact, that is
what many astronomers, opticians, philosophers of nature did by the
end of 18th century. The results are surprising....and new nowadays."

Pentcho Valev

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
et...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
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."

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.

Indeed .. there are a whole bunch of experiments that are compatible with
emission theory .. you can drop two different masses from a tower and see
that they fall at the same rate of acceleration, you can boil water and find
its boiling point at 100C .. all that is just as meaningless as MM because
it is NOT an experiment that could possibly refute emission theory.

However, those experiments that COULD refute emission theory have shown it
to be false .. so we need to throw it into the enormous junkpile of refuted
theories of physics and move on. That 's what scientists do ..its only
fanatics and nutcases like Pentcho the cling for dear life to an old refuted
theory for no logical reason (maybe its just that the want some attention).
Sad.

On Dec 7, 00:29, "Jeckyl" wrote:
"Tom Roberts" wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:
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."

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.

Indeed .. there are a whole bunch of experiments that are compatible with
emission theory .. you can drop two different masses from a tower and see
that they fall at the same rate of acceleration, you can boil water and find
its boiling point at 100C .. all that is just as meaningless as MM because
it is NOT an experiment that could possibly refute emission theory.

However, those experiments that COULD refute emission theory have shown it
to be false .. so we need to throw it into the enormous junkpile of refuted
theories of physics and move on. That 's what scientists do ..its only
fanatics and nutcases like Pentcho the cling for dear life to an old refuted
theory for no logical reason (maybe its just that the want some attention).
Sad.

Banesh Hoffmann, the apostle of Divine Albert, explains for you the
meaning of "FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT
CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, Chapter 5.
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la
Science, Paris, 1999, p. 112:
"De plus, si l'on admet que la lumiere est constituee de particules,
comme Einstein l'avait suggere dans son premier article, 13 semaines
plus tot, le second principe parait absurde: une pierre jetee d'un
train qui roule tres vite fait bien plus de degats que si on la jette
d'un train a l'arret. Or, d'apres Einstein, la vitesse d'une certaine
particule ne serait pas independante du mouvement du corps qui l'emet!
Si nous considerons que la lumiere est composee de particules qui
obeissent aux lois de Newton, ces particules se conformeront a la
relativite newtonienne. Dans ce cas, il n'est pas necessaire de
recourir a la contraction des longueurs, au temps local ou a la
transformation de Lorentz pour expliquer l'echec de l'experience de
Michelson-Morley. Einstein, comme nous l'avons vu, resista cependant a
la tentation d'expliquer ces echecs a l'aide des idees newtoniennes,
simples et familieres. Il introduisit son second postulat, plus ou
moins evident lorsqu'on pensait en termes d'ondes dans l'ether."

Translation from French:

"Moreover, if one admits that light consists of particles, as Einstein
had suggested in his first paper, 13 weeks earlier, the second
principle seems absurd: a stone thrown from a fast-moving train causes
much more damage than one thrown from a train at rest. Now, according
to Einstein, the speed of a particle would not be independent of the
state of motion of the emitting body! If we consider light as composed
of particles that obey Newton's laws, those particles would conform to
Newtonian relativity. In this case, it is not necessary to resort to
length contration, local time and Lorentz transformations in
explaining the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein however, as we have seen, resisted the temptation to explain
the negative result in terms of Newton's ideas, simple and familiar.
He introduced his second postulate, more or less evident as one thinks
in terms of waves in aether."

Pentcho Valev

On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 09:29:32 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
. net...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
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."

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.

Indeed .. there are a whole bunch of experiments that are compatible with
emission theory .. you can drop two different masses from a tower and see
that they fall at the same rate of acceleration, you can boil water and find
its boiling point at 100C .. all that is just as meaningless as MM because
it is NOT an experiment that could possibly refute emission theory.

There have been a few past experiments that have been interpreted as refuting
BaTh. All those interpretations are now known to be flawed.

All those

However, those experiments that COULD refute emission theory have shown it
to be false .. so we need to throw it into the enormous junkpile of refuted
theories of physics and move on. That 's what scientists do ..its only
fanatics and nutcases like Pentcho the cling for dear life to an old refuted
theory for no logical reason (maybe its just that the want some attention).
Sad.





Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 09:29:32 +1100, "Jeckyl" wrote:

"Tom Roberts" wrote in message
.net...
Pentcho Valev wrote:
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."

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.

Indeed .. there are a whole bunch of experiments that are compatible with
emission theory .. you can drop two different masses from a tower and see
that they fall at the same rate of acceleration, you can boil water and
find
its boiling point at 100C .. all that is just as meaningless as MM because
it is NOT an experiment that could possibly refute emission theory.

There have been a few past experiments that have been interpreted as
refuting
BaTh. All those interpretations are now known to be flawed.

All those

Not true .. only *some* have had excuses made for their failure added.
Others, like Sagnac, simply refute BaTH completely

On Dec 6, 5:26 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
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."

Similarly:

THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.

Indeed, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the equation f'=f(1+V/
c^2) which is EQUIVALENT to Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
which is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the EMISSION
theory of light.

Pentcho Valev


The mathematical arguments that refute derivation of E=mc2
( Sep 1905, Einstein, A., Annalen der Physik 18, 639 (1905).)
can be found at

www.AjayOnLine.us
The arguments are published in international journals and conferences.
If someone needs the copy of book

Einstein's E=mc2 Generalized

can be sent if required for observations.
Book is available at
www.amazon.com.

visit for details

www.AjayOnline.us

takecool a écrit :
On Dec 6, 5:26 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
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."

Similarly:

THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY
OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE.

Indeed, the Pound-Rebka experiment confirmed the equation f'=f(1+V/
c^2) which is EQUIVALENT to Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2)
which is EQUIVALENT to the equation c'=c+v given by the EMISSION
theory of light.

Pentcho Valev

The mathematical arguments that refute derivation of E=mc2

You mean E=mc^3 ?

Or taht the proof is not a mathematical one (hint : it coumld not be, as
"Energy" is not a mathématical notion


( Sep 1905, Einstein, A., Annalen der Physik 18, 639 (1905).)
can be found at

www.AjayOnLine.us
The arguments are published in international journals and conferences.


Good for you. So is the whole of Usenet...


[*plonk*]

If someone needs the copy of book

Einstein's E=mc2 Generalized

No, thanks



can be sent if required for observations.
Book is available at
www.amazon.com.

visit for details

www.AjayOnline.us

On Dec 19, 4:10 am, takecool wrote:


http://www.dkimages.com/discover/pre...5/35092155.JPG