A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Any Relevant Experiment Refutes Einstein's Relativity



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 23rd 20, 12:09 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,968
Default Any Relevant Experiment Refutes Einstein's Relativity

Einsteinians teach that the gravitational redshift, as measured in numerous versions of the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment, gloriously proves gravitational time dilation, the miracle (idiocy) Einstein fabricated in 1911:

Question: "What is the greatest Physics experiment that has ever been done and why is it so good?" Jim Al-Khalili: "For me it was an experiment carried out by two Americans in the early 1950s and regarded as one of the classic tests of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Their names were Robert Pound and Glen Rebka and they proved that gravity really slows time down." https://www.harriswestminstersixthfo...al-khalili-obe

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. [...] This GR time-dilation effect was first measured at Harvard by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy." http://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilli...Relativity.pdf

"A new paper co-authored by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu measures the gravitational redshift, illustrated by the gravity-induced slowing of a clock and sometimes referred to as gravitational time dilation (though users of that term often conflate two separate phenomena), a measurement that jibes with Einstein and that is 10,000 times more precise than its predecessor." http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ted-precision/

"Einstein's relativity theory states a clock must tick faster at the top of a mountain than at its foot, due to the effects of gravity. "Our performance means that we can measure the gravitational shift when you raise the clock just two centimetres (0.78 inches) on the Earth's surface," said study co-author Jun Ye." http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...-billion-years

Yet there are cracks in the Einsteinian ideology:

Albert Einstein Institute: "...you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...te_dwarfs.html

Banesh Hoffmann (p. 139): "The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation." http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768

The gravitational redshift, as measured in the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment, proves that the speed of light falling in gravity varies as per Newton (near Earth's surface the acceleration of falling photons is g = 9.8 m/s^2). This implies that GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION DOES NOT EXIST:

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relat...iers/pound.pdf

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, issue therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old October 23rd 20, 03:34 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,968
Default Any Relevant Experiment Refutes Einstein's Relativity

The observer starts moving relative to the emitter in Doppler:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

The wavelength (or distance between light pulses) obviously remains constant. Accordingly, the frequency and the speed of the pulses VARY proportionally for the moving observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

The emitter starts moving relative to the observer in Doppler:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVxC_NR64M

It is universally taught that the wavelength of light varies with the speed of the emitter, as shown in the video, but this contradicts the principle of relativity. If the wavelength varied, the emitter would measure its varying value, inside his spaceship, and so he would be able to calculate his spaceship's speed without looking outside. The wavelength of light is constant, independent of the speed of the emitter. Accordingly, the speed of the light and the frequency, as measured by the stationary observer, VARY with the speed of the emitter, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old October 23rd 20, 07:47 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,968
Default Any Relevant Experiment Refutes Einstein's Relativity

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light:

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

Wikipedia tells the truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment here (elsewhere it says the opposite):

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Even John Norton, high priest in the Einstein cult, tells the truth sometimes:

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

That is, originally (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz introducing, ad hoc, contracting lengths), the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant (independent of the motion of the emitter) speed of light posited by the theory of the nonexistent ether and "borrowed" by Einstein in 1905:

Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

See mo https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Any Relevant Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 February 10th 19 08:04 PM
Any Relevant Experiment Falsifies Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 July 5th 18 09:27 AM
How the Pound-Rebka Experiment Refutes Einstein Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 May 23rd 17 06:28 PM
How the Michelson-Morley Experiment Refutes Einstein Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 May 23rd 17 09:06 AM
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS REFUTES EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 August 8th 14 10:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2020 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.