RITZ'S THEORY AND EINSTEIN'S THEORY

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...way/index.html
John Norton: "We know from later recollections what one of Einstein's
modified versions of electrodynamics looked like. In that version, the
velocity of light is a constant, not with respect to the ether, but
with respect to the source that emits the light. Such a theory is
called an "emission" theory of light and, if the other parts of the
theory are well behaved, will satisfy the principle of relativity.
Einstein later recalled that the theory he developed was essentially
that developed later by Walther Ritz in 1908. In Ritz's theory - and
thus probably also in Einstein's theory - all electrodynamic action,
not just light, propagated in a vacuum at c with respect to the
actions source. (...) It was a lovely theory. But it didn't work. We
can only guess what the problems were. But we know he found many."

So Ritz's theory doesn't work? Because Divine Albert somehow found
many problems with it? And Divine Albert's Divine Theory does work?
Because Einsteinians find no problems with it? Let us see. According
to the emission theory, the speed of light relative to an observer
moving away from the source with speed v is c-v. According to
Einstein's special relativity, the speed of light relative to an
observer moving away from the source with speed v is c. The following
video clearly shows that the emission theory is correct (it works!)
while special relativity is simply wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect
and gravitational lensing in respect to Einstein's Theory of General
Relativity"

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 6, 8:54*pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...s/origins_path...
John Norton: "We know from later recollections what one of Einstein's
modified versions of electrodynamics looked like. In that version, the
velocity of light is a constant, not with respect to the ether, but
with respect to the source that emits the light. Such a theory is
called an "emission" theory of light and, if the other parts of the
theory are well behaved, will satisfy the principle of relativity.
Einstein later recalled that the theory he developed was essentially
that developed later by Walther Ritz in 1908. In Ritz's theory - and
thus probably also in Einstein's theory - all electrodynamic action,
not just light, propagated in a vacuum at c with respect to the
actions source. (...) It was a lovely theory. But it didn't work. We
can only guess what the problems were. But we know he found many."

So Ritz's theory doesn't work? Because Divine Albert somehow found
many problems with it? And Divine Albert's Divine Theory does work?
Because Einsteinians find no problems with it? Let us see. According
to the emission theory, the speed of light relative to an observer
moving away from the source with speed v is c-v. According to
Einstein's special relativity, the speed of light relative to an
observer moving away from the source with speed v is c. The following
video clearly shows that the emission theory is correct (it works!)
while special relativity is simply wrong:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect
and gravitational lensing in respect to Einstein's Theory of General
Relativity"

Pentcho Valev




Idiot

"It suddenly dawned on Einstein" how he could convert physics into a
silly fairytale:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming
contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two
principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that
there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light
is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's
version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that,
if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all
inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that
the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or
decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?
Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy
period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this
struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once
more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office
colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT
paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles
with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been
assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was
unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows
one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect
to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other
inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on
Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions
about the nature of time..."

Then everything went smoothly (space and time did obey Divine Albert's
orders) except the blasphemous wavelength refused (and is still
refusing) to vary with the speed of the observer so that the speed of
light (relative to the observer) could gloriously remain constant and
Einsteiniana's zombies could have the courage to destroy any opponent.
Of course, Divine Albert did not go as far as to care about the
wavelength and neither did zombies - they destroyed all opponents:

http://game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-c...4-1024x819.jpg

Nowadays innocent people (similar to the innocent child from "The
Emperor's New Clothes") discover, from time to time, that the
wavelength simply cannot vary with the speed of the observer but the
rest of the world couldn't care less - theoretical physics does not
exist anymore and even the silly fairytale created by Divine Albert is
dying very quickly:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the
velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion
of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in
a given time."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 7, 9:43*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
"It suddenly dawned on Einstein" how he could convert physics into a
silly fairytale:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/...relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming
contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two
principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that
there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light
is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's
version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that,
if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all
inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that
the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or
decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam?
Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy
period of time, to the point of despair. We have no details of this
struggle, unfortunately. Finally, after a day spent wrestling once
more with the problem in the company of his friend and patent office
colleague Michele Besso, the only person thanked in the 1905 SRT
paper, there came a moment of crucial insight. In all of his struggles
with the emission theory as well as with Lorentz's theory, he had been
assuming that the ordinary Newtonian law of addition of velocities was
unproblematic. It is this law of addition of velocities that allows
one to "prove" that, if the velocity of light is constant with respect
to one inertial frame, it cannot be constant with respect to any other
inertial frame moving with respect to the first. It suddenly dawned on
Einstein that this "obvious" law was based on certain assumptions
about the nature of time..."

Then everything went smoothly (space and time did obey Divine Albert's
orders) except the blasphemous wavelength refused (and is still
refusing) to vary with the speed of the observer so that the speed of
light (relative to the observer) could gloriously remain constant and
Einsteiniana's zombies could have the courage to destroy any opponent.
Of course, Divine Albert did not go as far as to care about the
wavelength and neither did zombies - they destroyed all opponents:

http://game2gether.de/wordpress/wp-c.../01/wall1-1280...

Nowadays innocent people (similar to the innocent child from "The
Emperor's New Clothes") discover, from time to time, that the
wavelength simply cannot vary with the speed of the observer but the
rest of the world couldn't care less - theoretical physics does not
exist anymore and even the silly fairytale created by Divine Albert is
dying very quickly:

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This
velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the
velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion
of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in
frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in
a given time."

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...ers%20son/Effe...
"La variation de la fréquence observée lorsqu'il y a mouvement relatif
entre la source et l'observateur est appelée effet Doppler. (...) 6.
Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement: La distance entre les
crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas. Mais la vitesse des
crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !"

Pentcho Valev



Idiot

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
"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. Emission
theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame
for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c"
relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate.
Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a
simple Newtonian theory. Although there are still proponents of this
theory outside the scientific mainstream, this theory is considered to
be conclusively discredited by most scientists. 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). (...) Albert Einstein is supposed to
have worked on his own emission theory before abandoning it in favor
of his special theory of relativity. Many years later R.S. Shankland
reports Einstein as saying that Ritz' theory had been "very bad" in
places and that he himself had eventually discarded emission theory
because he could think of no form of differential equations that
described it, since it leads to the waves of light becoming "all mixed
up"."

Conclusion: Any theory for which Divine Albert, the Divine
Mathematician, could think of no form of differential equations that
described it, is very bad. In other words, such a theory is
conclusively discredited by most scientists. If the initial dicredit
brought on such a theory proves fraudulent, the final dicredit brought
on it is absolutely honest and conclusive:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity.html
Alberto Martinez: "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its
source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert
Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the
speed of light depends on its source, just like all material
projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none
of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913
most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the
constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the
evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is
independent of its source had been found to be defective."

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 8, 11:18*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
"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. Emission
theories obey the principle of relativity by having no preferred frame
for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c"
relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate.
Thus, emitter theory combines electrodynamics and mechanics with a
simple Newtonian theory. Although there are still proponents of this
theory outside the scientific mainstream, this theory is considered to
be conclusively discredited by most scientists. 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). (...) Albert Einstein is supposed to
have worked on his own emission theory before abandoning it in favor
of his special theory of relativity. Many years later R.S. Shankland
reports Einstein as saying that Ritz' theory had been "very bad" in
places and that he himself had eventually discarded emission theory
because he could think of no form of differential equations that
described it, since it leads to the waves of light becoming "all mixed
up"."

Conclusion: Any theory for which Divine Albert, the Divine
Mathematician, could think of no form of differential equations that
described it, is very bad. In other words, such a theory is
conclusively discredited by most scientists. If the initial dicredit
brought on such a theory proves fraudulent, the final dicredit brought
on it is absolutely honest and conclusive:

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1/m/Relativity.html
Alberto Martinez: "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its
source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert
Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the
speed of light depends on its source, just like all material
projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none
of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913
most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the
constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the
evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is
independent of its source had been found to be defective."

Pentcho Valev



Idiot

Concentrated lie taught in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

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. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the
speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the
stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before
Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed
that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether)
in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. 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, so that c'=c."

The truth:

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 in the stationary frame of the ether. In a frame moving with
speed v relative to the ether the speed of light is c±v (according to
Maxwell's theory). (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v
and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in
the stationary frame, in accordance with Maxwell. The Michelson-Morley
experiment showed that the speed of light (relative to the observer)
varies not only with the speed of the observer (as predicted by
Maxwell's theory) but also with the speed of the light source, in
accordance with Newton's emission theory of light:

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."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is 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: "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."

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 9, 7:11*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Concentrated lie taught in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world:

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/sussk...ity/lecture-1/...
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. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the
speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the
stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before
Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed
that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether)
in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. 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, so that c'=c."

The truth:

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 in the stationary frame of the ether. In a frame moving with
speed v relative to the ether the speed of light is c±v (according to
Maxwell's theory). (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v
and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in
the stationary frame, in accordance with Maxwell. The Michelson-Morley
experiment showed that the speed of light (relative to the observer)
varies not only with the speed of the observer (as predicted by
Maxwell's theory) but also with the speed of the light source, in
accordance with Newton's emission theory of light:

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."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers
in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues
that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of
light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point
needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is 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: "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."

Pentcho Valev



Idiot

Zombie education: Why exactly can nothing go faster than the speed of
light? Because four-velocity vectors only rotate and never stretch or
shrink, which has to do with the invariance of the speed of light but
we'll save that for another time thank you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sIA0fepnKA
"Why exactly can nothing go faster than the speed of light? (...)
That's why nothing in our universe can go faster than light. Because
the phrase "faster than light," in our universe, is exactly equivalent
to the phrase "straighter than straight," or "more horizontal than
horizontal." It doesn't mean anything. Now, there are some mysteries
here. Why can four-velocity vectors only rotate, and never stretch or
shrink? There is an answer to that question, and it has to do with the
invariance of the speed of light. But I've rambled on quite enough
here, and so I think we'll save that for another time. For right now,
if you just believe that four-velocities can never stretch or shrink
because that's just the way it is, then you'll only be slightly less
informed on the subject than the most brilliant physicists who've ever
lived. Thank you."

Zombies clap and applaud and go looking for antirelativists to
destroy:

http://images.yume.vn/blog/20101026/halloween-31.JPG

Pentcho Valev

On Feb 11, 10:22*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
Zombie education: Why exactly can nothing go faster than the speed of
light? Because four-velocity vectors only rotate and never stretch or
shrink, which has to do with the invariance of the speed of light but
we'll save that for another time thank you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sIA0fepnKA
"Why exactly can nothing go faster than the speed of light? (...)
That's why nothing in our universe can go faster than light. Because
the phrase "faster than light," in our universe, is exactly equivalent
to the phrase "straighter than straight," or "more horizontal than
horizontal." It doesn't mean anything. Now, there are some mysteries
here. Why can four-velocity vectors only rotate, and never stretch or
shrink? There is an answer to that question, and it has to do with the
invariance of the speed of light. But I've rambled on quite enough
here, and so I think we'll save that for another time. For right now,
if you just believe that four-velocities can never stretch or shrink
because that's just the way it is, then you'll only be slightly less
informed on the subject than the most brilliant physicists who've ever
lived. Thank you."

Zombies clap and applaud and go looking for antirelativists to
destroy:

http://images.yume.vn/blog/20101026/halloween-31.JPG

Pentcho Valev



Imbecile