SANITY IN EINSTEINIANA'S SCHISOPHRENIC WORLD

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...1831761a0.html
Nature 183, 1761 (20 June 1959) Herbert Dingle: "AS is well known,
Einstein's special theory of relativity rests on two postulates: (1)
the postulate of relativity; (2) the postulate of constant light
velocity, which says "that light is always propagated in empty space
with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion
of the emitting body". For the first postulate there is much
experimental support; for the second, none."

http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_S...Crossroads.pdf
Herbert Dingle, SCIENCE AT THE CROSSROADS
"According to the special relativity theory, as expounded by Einstein
in his original paper, two similar, regularly-running clocks, A and B,
in uniform relative motion, must work at different rates.....How is
the slower-working clock distinguished? The supposition that the
theory merely requires each clock to APPEAR to work more slowly from
the point of view of the other is ruled out not only by its many
applications and by the fact that the theory would then be useless in
practice, but also by Einstein's own examples, of which it is
sufficient to cite the one best known and most often claimed to have
been indirectly established by experiment, viz. 'Thence' [i.e. from
the theory he had just expounded, which takes no account of possible
effects of accleration, gravitation, or any difference at all between
the clocks except their state of uniform motion] 'we conclude that a
balance-clock at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small
amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles
under otherwise identical conditions.' Applied to this example, the
question is: what entitled Einstein to conclude FROM HIS THEORY that
the equatorial, and not the polar, clock worked more slowly?"

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/c...&filetype=.pdf
Herbert Dingle: "...the internal consistency of the restricted
relativity theory seems questionable if the postulate of the constancy
of the velocity of light is given its usual interpretation... (...)
These difficulties are removed if the postulate be interpreted MERELY
as requiring that the velocity of light relative to its actual
material source shall always be c..."

http://www.worldnpa.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_215.pdf
Herbert Dingle: "The special relativity theory requires different
rates of ageing to result from motion which belongs no more to one
twin than to the other: that is impossible. It is impossible to
exaggerate the importance of this result, for this theory is, by
common consent, "taken for granted" in Max Born's words, in all modern
atomic research. and it determines the course of practically all
current developments in physical science, theoretical and
experimental, whether concerned with the laboratory or with the
universe. To continue to use the theory without discrimination,
therefore, is not only to follow a false trail in the investigation of
nature, but also to risk physical disaster on the unforeseeable
scale... (...) But it is now clear that the interpretation of those
[Lorentz] equations as constituting a basis for a new kinematics,
displacing that of Galileo and Newton, which is the essence of the
special relativity theory, leads inevitably to impossibilities and
therefore cannot be true. Either there is an absolute standard of rest
- call it the ether as with Maxwell. or the universe as with Mach, or
absolute space as with Newton, or what you will or else ALL MOTION,
INCLUDING THAT WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT, IS RELATIVE, AS WITH RITZ. It
remains to be determined, by a valid experimental determination of THE
TRUE RELATION OF THE VELOCITY OF LIGHT TO THAT OF ITS SOURCE, which of
these alternatives is the true one. In the meantime, the fiction of
"space-time" as an objective element of nature, and the associated
pseudo-concepts such as "time-dilation", that violate "saving common
sense", should be discharged from physics and philosophy..."

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/...9-p361-367.pdf
RADAR TESTING OF THE RELATIVE VELOCITY OF LIGHT IN SPACE
Bryan G. Wallace, Spectroscopy Letters 1969 pages 361-367
ABSTRACT: "Published interplanetary radar data presents evidence that
the relative velocity of light in space is c+v and not c."
INTRODUCTION: "There are three main theories about the relativity
velocity of light in space. The Newtonian corpuscular theory is
relativistic in the Galilean sense and postulates that the velocity is
c+v relative to the observer. The ether theory postulates that the
velocity is c relative to the ether. The Einstein theory postulates
that the velocity is c relative to the observer. The Michelson-Morley
experiment presents evidence against the ether theory and for the c+v
theory. The c theory explains the results of this experiment by
postulating ad hoc properties of space and time..."

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "There is a popular argument that the world's oldest
profession is sexual prostitution. I think that it is far more likely
that the oldest profession is scientific prostitution, and that it is
still alive and well, and thriving in the 20th century. I suspect that
long before sex had any commercial value, the prehistoric shamans used
their primitive knowledge to acquire status, wealth, and political
power, in much the same way as the dominant scientific and religious
politicians of our time do. (...) Because many of the dominant
theories of our time do not follow the rules of science, they should
more properly be labeled pseudoscience. The people who tend to believe
more in theories than in the scientific method of testing theories,
and who ignore the evidence against the theories they believe in,
should be considered pseudoscientists and not true scientists. To the
extent that the professed beliefs are based on the desire for status,
wealth, or political reasons, these people are scientific prostitutes.
(...) Einstein's special relativity theory with his second postulate
that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin that
holds the whole range of modern physics theories together. Shatter
this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce! (...)
The speed of light is c+v. (...) I expect that the scientists of the
future will consider the dominant abstract physics theories of our
time in much the same light as we now consider the Medieval theories
of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin or that the Earth
stands still and the Universe moves around it." [Bryan Wallace wrote
"The Farce of Physics" on his deathbed hence some imperfections in the
text!]

http://www.amazon.ca/Oeuvres-compl%C.../dp/2850492752
Jacques Maritain, Raïssa Maritain, Jean-Marie Allion
Oeuvres complètes, Volume 3, p. 268:
Jacques Maritain cite Jean Perrin: "Il est remarquable qu'un retour à
l'hypothèse de l'émission, en admettant que les particules lumineuses
sont émises par chaque source avec une même vitesse PAR RAPPORT A ELLE
dans toutes les directions expliquerait dans les conceptions de la
Mécanique classique le résultat négatif de l'expérience de Michelson
et de Morley quel que soit le mouvement d'ensemble du système..."

http://www.amazon.ca/Oeuvres-compl%C.../dp/2850492752
Jacques Maritain, Raïssa Maritain, Jean-Marie Allion
Oeuvres complètes, Volume 3, p. 418:
Jacques Maritain: "Si les résultats de Miller n'étaient pas confirmés
[et il semble bien que ce soit le cas], l'incertitude de nos
connaissances sur la nature de la lumière, et le fait même que notre
science hésite encore entre la théorie de l'émission et celle de
l'ondulation, devraient rendre sensible aux esprits même les moins
avertis en philosophie et en logique la faute énorme qu'on commet en
donnant pour nécessitée en raison, et cela dans l'ordre ontologique
lui-même, l'interprétation einsteinienne de l'expérience de
Michelson."

http://www.amazon.ca/Oeuvres-compl%C.../dp/2850492752
Jacques Maritain, Raïssa Maritain, Jean-Marie Allion
Oeuvres complètes, Volume 3, p. 285:
Jacques Maritain: "Il ne reste plus alors qu'à avouer que la théorie
[d'Einstein], si l'on donnait une signification ontologiquement réelle
aux entités qu'elle met en jeu, comporterait des absurdités;
entièrement logique et cohérente comme système hypothético-déductif et
synthèse mathématique des phénomènes, elle n'est pas, malgré les
prétensions de ses partisans, une philosophie de la nature, parce que
le principe de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière, sur lequel
elle s'appuie, ne peut pas être ontologiquement vrai."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.ufodigest.com/article/exp...ory-everything
Roland Michel: "Consider the famous "Twin Paradox" thought experiment,
where a speeding astronaut returns to Earth to discover he is much
younger than his Earthbound twin. A logical flaw in this paradox claim
has been reluctantly but increasingly acknowledged over the years,
since everything is relative in Special Relativity theory, so either
twin could be considered speeding or stationary, removing any absolute
age difference. But, should this flaw be pointed out, focus is
invariably switched away from Special Relativity since only the
astronaut underwent actual physical acceleration in his travels, which
is instead the realm of General Relativity. This switch is generally
presented as a resolution to the issue - but is it? First, this switch
to General Relativity invalidates the still often-claimed support for
Special Relativity from both this famous thought experiment and from
all related physical experiments, such as speeding particles in
accelerators, or atomic clocks on circling airplanes or satellites.
Yet this fact is typically neither discussed nor even acknowledged,
leaving many with the impression that the Twin Paradox and related
physical experiments still fully apply to and support Special
Relativity theory. (...) So, according to both the "everything is
relative" aspect of Special Relativity and the Principle of
Equivalence in General Relativity there would appear to be no such
phenomenon as "relativistic time dilation", despite widespread
citation of iconic theoretical and experimental claims to the
contrary."

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/...elativity.html
What is wrong with relativity?
G. BURNISTON BROWN
Bulletin of the Institute of Physics and Physical Society, Vol. 18
(March, 1967) pp.7177
"A more intriguing instance of this so-called 'time dilation' is the
well-known 'twin paradox', where one of two twins goes for a journey
and returns to find himself younger than his brother who remained
behind. This case allows more scope for muddled thinking because
acceleration can be brought into the discussion. Einstein maintained
the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin, and admitted that it
contradicts the principle of relativity, saying that acceleration must
be the cause (Einstein 1918). In this he has been followed by
relativists in a long controversy in many journals, much of which ably
sustains the character of earlier speculations which Born describes as
"monstrous" (Born 1956). Surely there are three conclusive reasons why
acceleration can have nothing to do with the time dilation
calculated:
(i) By taking a sufficiently long journey the effects of acceleration
at the start, turn-round and end could be made negligible compared
with the uniform velocity time dilation which is proportional to the
duration of the journey.
(ii) If there is no uniform time dilation, and the effect, if any, is
due to acceleration, then the use of a formula depending only on the
steady velocity and its duration cannot be justified.
(iii) There is, in principle, no need for acceleration. Twin A can get
his velocity V before synchronizing his clock with that of twin B as
he passes. He need not turn round: he could be passed by C who has a
velocity V in the opposite direction, and who adjusts his clock to
that of A as he passes. When C later passes B they can compare clock
readings. As far as the theoretical experiment is concerned, C's clock
can be considered to be A's clock returning without acceleration
since, by hypothesis, all the clocks have the same rate when at rest
together and change with motion in the same way independently of
direction. [fn. I am indebted to Lord Halsbury for pointing this out
to me.] (...) The three examples which have been dealt with above show
clearly that the difficulties are not paradoxes) but genuine
contradictions which follow inevitably from the principle of
relativity and the physical interpretations of the Lorentz
transformations. The special theory of relativity is therefore
untenable as a physical theory."

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
"This first appearance of what has become known as time dilation in
Einstein's work requires careful attention. In particular, anyone who
assumes that the special theory deals only with uniform movement in a
straight line and is thus a precisely delineated subset of the later
general theory, will wish to explore why Einstein extends his
conclusions to polygonal and circular movements. It is by no means "at
once apparent" that what is true for a straight line is true for a
polygon, nor that what has been "proved" for a polygon applies to a
circle. The principle of relativity introduced at the outset of the
1905 paper implicitly limited the special theory to reference frames
moving at a constant speed in a straight line with respect to one
another. In later work, Einstein explicitly stated that the special
theory applied only to a reference frame "in a state of uniform
rectilinear and non rotary motion" in respect of a second reference
frame, in contrast to the general theory that dealt with reference
frames regardless of their state of motion (Einstein 1920, 61).
Acceleration, therefore, would appear to be the province of the
general theory. A polygon, however, would seem to necessarily involve
acceleration whenever there is a abrupt alteration in the direction of
travel. Even more confusingly, a circular path, far from allowing
movement at a "constant velocity", has a velocity that continually
changes. Einstein, it is argued, wished to minimise the significance
of acceleration - as he did not mention acceleration at all in the
passage, he could hardly be said to do otherwise (Essen 1971, 13).
With respect to the transition from the straight line to the polygon,
this assumption is corroborated by comments Einstein made in 1911 when
he said that the larger the polygon the less significant the impact of
a sudden change of direction would be.
Einstein 1911: "The [travelling] clock runs slower if it is in uniform
motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a
jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The
sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the
position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is
moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward
motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller
must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change." (Einstein et
al. 1993, 354)
(...) The argument that the prediction of time difference between a
moving and a stationary clock violates the principle of relativity is
well known. Certainly, it must have become known to Einstein, for in
1918 he created a dialogue in which "Kritikus" voiced exactly this
objection (Einstein 1918). In response to this criticism, Einstein
underwent a volte-face, reversing his reasoning in 1905 and 1911. The
sudden change in direction of the moving clock, far from having
unknown effects that needed to be minimised, was now said to provide
the entire explanation for the change. Instead of imagining a moving
clock travelling in a huge polygon or circle to make sudden changes in
direction as insignificant as possible or the journey as smooth as
possible, Einstein imagined an out and back journey. He then explained
that the slow-down in the moving clock occurred during the sudden jolt
when it went into reverse. (...) Given Einsteins argument in 1918, it
seems inescapable that his 1905 prediction of time dilation was not,
in fact, a "peculiar consequence" of his forgoing account of special
relativity (Einstein 1923, 49). When it is also remembered that in
1904 Lorentz deduced the existence of "local time", it is reasonable
to conclude that the prediction that the clocks would end up showing
different times can be reached without entering into Einstein's
reasoning on the special theory at all. The supporters of Einstein,
however, generally maintain that one needs to move beyond the special
theory to the general theory to understand why the times shown by the
clocks would be different. However, as Einstein's prediction preceded
the general theory, this argument is problematic (Lovejoy 1931, 159;
Essen 1971, 14). It has been seen that: (a) in 1911 Einstein
explicitly rules out the ability of the special theory of relativity
to say what happened if the moving clock suddenly changed direction,
and (b) in 1918 Einstein tacitly admitted that his explanation of the
clock paradox in 1905 was incorrect by transforming the polygonal or
circular journey of the moving clock into an out and back journey. If
the general theory is necessary to explain the clock paradox, then
Einstein must have (a) predicted the effects of acceleration in 1905
even though he did not incorporate them into his theory for another
decade, and (b) hidden his intuition by describing a journey that
discounted their significance. (...) There is, nonetheless, some
divergence about how to resolve the clock paradox amongst mainstream
scientists and philosophers who address the issue. The majority
suggest that (a) the general theory is required to resolve the paradox
because like "Kritikus" they have deduced - quite correctly - that it
cannot be explained by the special theory. However, a minority believe
that (b) the paradox can be explained by the special theory because
they have deduced - again quite correctly - that it is incredible to
suppose that only the general theory can explain a prediction
ostensibly arising from the prior special theory. Each deduction,
considered in isolation, is allowable within the mainstream; what is
not permitted is to bring the two of them together to conclude that
( c) neither the special nor the general theory explains time
dilation. (...) The prediction that clocks will move at different
rates is particularly well known, and the problem of explaining how
this can be so without violating the principle of relativity is
particularly obvious. The clock paradox, however, is only one of a
number of simple objections that have been raised to different aspects
of Einstein's theory of relativity. (Much of this criticism is quite
apart from and often predates the apparent contradiction between
relativity theory and quantum mechanics.) It is rare to find any
attempt at a detailed rebuttal of these criticisms by professional
physicists. However, physicists do sometimes give a general response
to criticisms that relativity theory is syncretic by asserting that
Einstein is logically consistent, but that to explain why is so
difficult that critics lack the capacity to understand the argument.
In this way, the handy claim that there are unspecified, highly
complex resolutions of simple apparent inconsistencies in the theory
can be linked to the charge that antirelativists have only a shallow
understanding of the matter, probably gleaned from misleading popular
accounts of the theory. The claim that the theory of relativity is
logically consistent for reasons that are too complex for non-
professionals to grasp is not only convenient, but is rhetorically
unassailable - as whenever a critic disproves one argument, the
professional physicist can allude to another more abstruse one.
Einstein's transformation of the clock paradox from a purported
expression of the special theory to a purported expression of the much
more complicated general theory is one example of such a defence. A
more recent example is found in Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont's
scornful account of Henri Bergson's attempt to investigate the clock/
twin paradox. Like "Kritikus", Bergson argued that the asymmetric
outcome of the paradox was incompatible with the principle of
relativity. Like Einstein, Sokal and Bricmont explain that Bergson has
failed to recognise the asymmetric forces of acceleration at work.
They go on to claim that the special theory tells us what happens
under these circumstances and that the general theory only laboriously
leads to the same conclusion. The suggestion that to vindicate this
claim would be laborious functions in the same way as Einstein's
elusive "calculations"; that is, it is not an explanation but an
explanation-stopper. Sokal and Bricmont do not demonstrate how either
the special theory or the general theory explain time dilation. Nor do
they explain how their claim can be reconciled with Einstein
explicitly limiting the special theory to objects travelling at a
uniform velocity, nor account for why the circular journey of 1905
became the out and back journey of 1918. (...) Einstein's theory of
relativity fails to reconcile the contradictory principles on which it
is based. Rather than combining incompatible assumptions into an
integrated whole, the theory allows the adept to step between
incompatible assumptions in a way that hides these inconsistencies.
The clock paradox is symptomatic of Einstein's failure, and its
purported resolution is illustrative of the techniques that can be
used to mask this failure. To uncover to the logical contradictions in
the theory of relativity presents no very difficult task. However, the
theory is impervious to such attacks as it is shielded by a
professional constituency of supporters whose interests and authority
are bound up in maintaining its inflated claims. Relativity theory, in
short, is an ideology."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.oocities.com/rainforest/6039/jd9.html
"An open letter to Professor Stephen Hawking by John Doan, Melbourne,
29 August 97....There's only one thing that I want to raise with you
in this letter, and it's Einstein's second postulate. Why can't you
step out from Einstein's shadow and change relativity, Professor
Hawking? Why should you accept Einstein's second postulate that the
speed of light is absolute, resulting all paradoxes about time
dilation? Why should you accept that c + v = c, in the sense that a
light spent from Earth to a spaceship has to be measured as c
regardless how fast the spaceship is travelling relative to Earth? How
much evidence have you truly seen?....Your students would still keep
asking the same questions your teachers have asked before. Many people
are still confused. Some understand but cannot explain to idiots. Some
don't understand but have stopped asking to stop being called idiots,
too. And why should we deserve this? Why should we waste time
imagining what our world would be like since Einstein said light is
absolute? Why don't we go back and ask what if Einstein is wrong, that
light is not absolute, that in fact c + c = 2c?....I have a dream,
that one day Professor Hawking would write the first non-Einstein
relativity book with an opposite second postulate, and I would be one
of first readers congratulating you for helping me understand
it.....If you say c + c = 2c, you certainly could make more sense than
Einstein's postulate saying c + c = c. Yet where is non-Einstein
relativity? Why can't you invent it, Professor Hawking? What has
stopped you?"

http://www.dormirenfrance.fr/relativ...nt-s107511.htm
"Comme c'est les 100 ans de la version originale de la relativité
restreinte, une révision des hypothèses originales, des documents et
des idées qui ont conduit à l'acceptation de cette théorie est
opportune et justifiée. Chaque année, des millions d'étudiants sont
enseignées cette théorie sans une analyse critique de la relativité.
Théorie de la relativité se compose de ses deux variantes spécial
relativité et la relativité générale et est considéré comme la pierre
angulaire de la physique moderne. Albert Einstein a emprunté des idées
de Fitzgerald, Lorentz et Voigt pour créer un nouveau concept de
l'univers. Sa première uvre à cet égard plus tard, vint à être connu
comme la relativité restreinte et contient de nombreuses idées
controversées qui sont aujourd'hui considérées comme un axiome. Parmi
ceux-ci sont la longueur Contraction, Dilatation du temps, le paradoxe
des jumeaux et l'équivalence de masse et l'énergie résumées dans
l'équation E = mc2. (...) Toutefois, des doutes subsistent dans la
communauté scientifique qui n'ont jamais totalement abandonné le
confort d'une conception newtonienne du monde. (...) À la suite de ces
idées, notre compréhension de la géométrie, les mathématiques, la
physique, la science et l'univers ne serait jamais la même. Toutefois,
certains scientifiques déclarent que la vitesse de la lumière n'est
pas constante à partir des observations expérimentales différentes."

http://www.webastro.net/forum/showthread.php?t=72449
"La relativité doit être fausse. En effet, considérons une échelle de
20 mètres de long transportée si rapidement dans la direction qui lui
est parallèle qu'elle ne paraît plus avoir que 10 mètres de long dans
le système du laboratoire. A un moment donné, on peut donc la faire
entrer toute entière dans un bâtiment de 10 mètres de long. Plaçons-
nous cependant dans le système de référence du coureur qui la porte.
Pour lui, le bâtiment est contractée à la moitié de sa longueur.
Comment une perche de 20 mètres pourrait-elle entrer dans un bâtiment
de 5 mètres ? Et cette conclusion impossible à retenir ne démontre-t-
elle pas que la relativité renferme quelque part une faille logique
fondamentale ?"

http://forums.futura-sciences.com/ph...on-morley.html
"Interpretation de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley. Cette experience
nie l'existance de l'éther conjugé à l'utilisation de la relativité
galiléenne. Mais qu'est qui pousse alors Einstein a supposer que la
vitesse de la lumiere est invariante dans tt refs inertiels? Ou encore
Lorentz à s'acrocher a l'existance de l'ether en lui aportant des
propriétés particulières? Ces deux interprétations ont été
effectivement fructueuses pour ce qui est de la confrontation a
l'exprérimentation. Mais y a il eu a l'époque des interprétation niant
l'existance de l'ether, et suposant que la vitesse de la lumière
dépendait de la vitesse de la source (l'experience de Michelson-Morley
étant parfaitement compatible avec une vision corpusculaire de la
lumiere et une utilisation de la relativité galiléenne) ? Et pourquoi
ces théories, même a l'époque ou les conséquence de la relativité
restreinte ou de l'utilisation des transfo de Lorentz (ex: paradoxe de
Langevin) ne pouvaient etre testé, ont elles été abandonés?"

http://astronomie.forumactif.com/t87...ite-d-einstein
"J'ai l'impression que la question de Yacine comme celle de Dingle
(ralentissement des horloges) resteront sans réponse... Peut-être que
le postulat d'Einstein (l'invariance de c) est faux tout simplement?"

Pentcho Valev

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hutchison/080616
Fred Hutchison: "Like bronze idols that are hollow inside, Einstein
built a cluster of "Potemkin villages," which are false fronts with
nothing behind them. Grigori Potemkin (1739-1791) was a general-field
marshal, Russian statesman, and favorite of Empress Catherine the
Great. He is alleged to have built facades of non-existent villages
along desolate stretches of the Dnieper River to impress Catherine as
she sailed to the Crimea in 1787. Actors posing as happy peasants
stood in front of these pretty stage sets and waved to the pleased
Empress. This incident reminds me of the story of Eleanor Roosevelt's
Moscow tour guide who showed her the living quarters of communist
party bosses and claimed that these were the apartments of the average
Russian worker. The incredibly gullible first lady was delighted. Like
Catherine, the sentimental Eleanor was prone to wishful thinking and
was easily deceived. What has all this to do with Einstein? The
science establishment has a powerful romantic desire to believe in
Einstein. Therefore, they are not only fooled by Einstein's tricks,
they are prepared to defend his Potemkin villages."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.amazon.ca/Oeuvres-compl%C.../dp/2850492752
Jacques Maritain, Raïssa Maritain, Jean-Marie Allion
Oeuvres complètes, Volume 3, pp. 299-300:

Jacques Maritain:

"C'est une chose redoutable pour une civilisation d'avoir des savants
privés de bon sens. Et que dire des vulgarisateurs de la science !
L'intelligence commune pourra-t-elle mieux que tant de savants
distinguer la science proprement dite d'avec la pseudo-philosophie qui
la parasite, saura-t-elle comprendre qu'une théorie et des formules
peuvent coller avec les faits sans pour cela nous livrer le réel
physique en lui-même? En tout cas, l'einsteinisme philosophique, dont
on l'empoisonne systématiquement, est pour elle un agent de
désorganisation d'une puissance extrême. Si la nouvelle "conception du
monde" a, par accident, - en écrabouillant un grand nombre de ces
dogmes qu'on regardait comme intangibles depuis les fondateurs de la
mécanique classique, - l'avantage de montrer de façon palpable la
précarité de ce que le public regarde comme "la Science", par contre
elle tend de soi à ce résultat, d'habituer les gens à accepter
l'absurde et à perdre toute confiance dans le sens commun, - c'est-à-
dire, en définitive, dans l'intelligence et dans notre nature elle-
même ; et l'on ne peut imaginer pire dégâts. C'est la généralisation,
sur une grande échelle, de l'opération tentée par Kant et ses
successeurs sur les principes suprêmes de la raison ; amener l'homme à
douter de l'évidence rationnelle, d'abord en ce qui concerne l'Être
divin, la Réalité par excellence, ensuite en ce qui concerne toute
réalité, et le monde même de la science positive. Selon le mot de M.
Langevin, c'est une amputation, non pas de préjugés hérités du langage
des Grecs (qui ont bon dos), mais une amputation de la faculté
intellective elle-même.

Il y a quelques années, on s'amusait à répéter : Défends ta peau
contre ton médecin. Le monde moderne est contraint de se dire à lui-
même, et c'est moins drôle : Défends ta raison contre tes savants. La
suprématie des mathématiques depuis trois siècles n'a pas tourné au
bien de l'esprit. Il ne s'agit plus aujourd'hui de se saisir de l'être
créé, voire de l'épuiser par l'intelligence ; il s'agit de le
reconstruire librement, et de jouer au démiurge mathématicien : dum
deus calculat, fit mundus. Ce jeu créateur intéresse plus que le vrai.
Un algébriste y réussit d'ailleurs bien plus aisément encore qu'un
métaphysicien : faute de Spinoza, nous avons Einstein, et tout un
peuple court après lui. La science physico-mathématique, mal entendue,
achève ainsi de faire perdre à la raison le goût de l'être [c'est
maintenant le goût du quantitatif] ; exerçant sur elle un empire
tyrannique ; par son illusoire altitude et sa fausse délectation elle
la dégoûte de la sagesse. En même temps elle met le monde sensible au
service de nos désirs.

La science, même la plus mélangée d'hypothétique et de probable, même
la moins élevée en intellectualité, la science est chose bonne en elle-
même, et qui détient une étincelle divine. On a vu toutefois ce
qu'elle peut produire, lorsqu'elle est employée par l'homme, en fait
de ruines matérielles et de destructions sanglantes. Les désastres
qu'en usant d'elle les apprentis sorciers peuvent provoquer dans
l'ordre de l'esprit, pour être invisibles, ne sont pas moins
énormes."

Pentcho Valev

Partial sanity in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world: the speed of
light does vary with the speed of the observer (sane) but continues to
be independent of the speed of the emitter (insane):

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/bethell4.1.1.html
Tom Bethell: "Einstein postulated - assumed - that the speed of light
is a constant irrespective of the motion, not just of the light
source, but also of the observer. And that "observer" part was very
hard to accept. A sound wave travels at a constant speed in air (of a
given temperature and density) whatever the motion of the sound
source. Sound from an airplane travels forward at a speed that is
unaffected by the speed of the plane. But if you travel toward that
approaching sound wave then you must ADD your speed to that of the
plane's sound wave if you are to know the speed with which it
approaches you."

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHY.../lecture18.pdf
Roger Barlow: "Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is
moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/(lambda) waves
pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/(lambda). So f'=(c
+v)/(lambda)."

http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/students.../lecture16.pdf
Convention we will choose:
u = velocity of observer or source
v = velocity of wave
Moving Observer
Observer approaching: f'=(1/T')=(v+u)/(lambda)
Observer receding: f'=(1/T')=(v-u)/(lambda)

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
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 !
L'observateur se rapproche de la source
f' = V'/(lambda)
f' = f (1 + Vo/V)
L'observateur s'éloigne de la source
f' = f (1 - Vo/V)

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits
light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If
the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical
analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c +
v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence
the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which
is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo Fo.
(...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is
difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and
continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf
N. Martin Gwynne: "Length shrinks, mass increases, time shrinks,
straight lines form circles. Constants, in fact, cease to be constants
and nature is now seen not to act in accordance with nature. How is
all this done? Where is the fallacy in the equation which allows the
mathematics to prove the impossible? How is the conjuring trick
achieved? It is done by simple hoax and elaborate fraud. Let us
examine both. No apology is needed for describing Einstein's
achievement as a conjuring trick. Conjuring tricks are accomplished by
illusion, such as sleight-of-hand, which, without the assistance of
misdirection, would be exposed in an instant; yet hours can be spent
staring at them without seeing wherein the fallacy lies. Let us
confront ourselves with the problem facing the swindlers. How can we
demonstrate to the geniuses in the scientific professions and to the
gullible masses that three constants - length, mass and time - are in
fact not constants but variables? The answer is simple and beautiful,
even though it could never have served until our own lunatic century.
Choose a FOURTH element, which clearly is a variable, such as the
speed of light; describe it as - or rather, "postulate" (Einstein’s
term) that it is - a constant; forbear to fear - science has travelled
far since the days of Euclid - that anything so rigorous as self-
evident truth will be required of our postulate; and now crank out
some mathematics. And, naturally, we shall find that if the variable
is falsely inserted into the calculations AS A CONSTANT, the
mathematics cannot fail to demonstrate that the constants are
variables."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.crc-resurrection.org/Rena...e_Einstein.php
POUR EN FINIR AVEC EINSTEIN
Abbé Georges de Nantes: "Écoutons Lévy-Leblond : «Le génie d'Einstein
fut de mettre en cause les notions de base d'espace et de temps elles-
mêmes (bigre !). Il inversa la démarche : au lieu d'expliquer la
constance apparente de la vitesse de la lumière (par quelque cause
physique particulière), il la prit comme point de départ et bâtit sur
cette hypothèse une nouvelle théorie de l'espace et du temps.» (Lévy-
Leblond, p. 419) Mais c'est absurde ! «Qu'on le tourne et retourne
comme on voudra, il faut avouer que c'est là un pur non-
sens.» (Maritain, Réflexions sur l'intelligence, p. 215) Ce n'est plus
la vitesse du mobile qui résulte de l'espace et du temps, ce sont
l'espace et le temps qui se contractent ou se dilatent, pour laisser à
l'objet sa vitesse constante, invariable, insurpassable, absolue !"

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf
N. Martin Gwynne: "Length shrinks, mass increases, time shrinks,
straight lines form circles. Constants, in fact, cease to be constants
and nature is now seen not to act in accordance with nature. How is
all this done? Where is the fallacy in the equation which allows the
mathematics to prove the impossible? How is the conjuring trick
achieved? It is done by simple hoax and elaborate fraud. Let us
examine both. No apology is needed for describing Einstein's
achievement as a conjuring trick. Conjuring tricks are accomplished by
illusion, such as sleight-of-hand, which, without the assistance of
misdirection, would be exposed in an instant; yet hours can be spent
staring at them without seeing wherein the fallacy lies. Let us
confront ourselves with the problem facing the swindlers. How can we
demonstrate to the geniuses in the scientific professions and to the
gullible masses that three constants - length, mass and time - are in
fact not constants but variables? The answer is simple and beautiful,
even though it could never have served until our own lunatic century.
Choose a FOURTH element, which clearly is a variable, such as the
speed of light; describe it as - or rather, "postulate" (Einsteins
term) that it is - a constant; forbear to fear - science has travelled
far since the days of Euclid - that anything so rigorous as self-
evident truth will be required of our postulate; and now crank out
some mathematics. And, naturally, we shall find that if the variable
is falsely inserted into the calculations AS A CONSTANT, the
mathematics cannot fail to demonstrate that the constants are
variables."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_page...daud-26255.php
Pour la Science: Raconte-moi un chercheur : Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud

http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?f...TE-052-456.pdf
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud
Relativité: Les preuves étaient fausses

http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "L'expédition britannique envoie deux équipes
indépendantes sur le trajet de l'éclipse : l'une dirigée par Andrew
Crommelin dans la ville de Sobral, dans le nord du Brésil, l'autre
conduite par Eddington lui-même sur l'île de Principe, en face de
Libreville, au Gabon. Le matériel embarqué est des plus sommaires au
regard des moyens actuels : une lunette astronomique de seulement 20
cm de diamètre en chaque lieu, avec un instrument de secours de 10 cm
à Sobral. Pour éviter l'emploi d'une monture mécanique trop lourde à
transporter, la lumière est dirigée vers les lunettes par de simples
miroirs mobiles, ce qui se révélera être une bien mauvaise idée. La
stratégie est assez complexe. Il s'agit d'exposer des plaques
photographiques durant l'éclipse pour enregistrer la position d'un
maximum d'étoiles autour du Soleil, puis de comparer avec des plaques
témoins de la même région du ciel obtenues de nuit, quelques mois plus
tard. La différence des positions entre les deux séries de plaques,
avec et sans le Soleil, serait la preuve de l'effet de la relativité
et le résultat est bien sûr connu à l'avance. Problème non
négligeable : la différence attendue est minuscule. Au maximum, au
bord même du Soleil, l'écart prévu est seulement de un demi dix-
millième de degré, soit très précisément 1,75 seconde d'arc (1,75"),
correspondant à l'écart entre les deux bords d'une pièce de monnaie
observée à 3 km de distance ! Or, quantités d'effets parasites peuvent
contaminer les mesures, la qualité de l'émulsion photographique, les
variations dans l'atmosphère terrestre, la dilatation des miroirs...
Le jour J, l'équipe brésilienne voit le ciel se dégager au dernier
moment mais Eddington n'aperçoit l'éclipse qu'à travers les nuages !
Sa quête est très maigre, tout juste deux plaques sur lesquelles on
distingue à peine cinq étoiles. Pressé de rentrer en Angleterre,
Eddington ne prend même pas la précaution d'attendre les plaques
témoins. Les choses vont beaucoup mieux à Sobral : 19 plaques avec
plus d'une dizaine d'étoiles et huit plaques prises avec la lunette de
secours. L'équipe reste sur place deux mois pour réaliser les fameuses
plaques témoins et, le 25 août, tout le monde est en Angleterre.
Eddington se lance dans des calculs qu'il est le seul à contrôler,
décidant de corriger ses propres mesures avec des plaques obtenues
avec un autre instrument, dans une autre région du ciel, autour
d'Arcturus. Il conclut finalement à une déviation comprise entre 1,31"
et 1,91" : le triomphe d'Einstein est assuré ! Très peu sûr de sa
méthode, Eddington attend anxieusement les résultats de l'autre
expédition qui arrivent en octobre, comme une douche froide : suivant
une méthode d'analyse rigoureuse, l'instrument principal de Sobral a
mesuré une déviation de seulement 0,93". La catastrophe est en vue.
S'ensuivent de longues tractations entre Eddington et Dyson,
directeurs respectifs des observatoires de Cambridge et de Greenwich.
On repêche alors les données de la lunette de secours de Sobral, qui a
le bon goût de produire comme résultat un confortable 1,98", et le
tour de passe-passe est joué. Dans la publication historique de la
Royal Society, on lit comme justification une simple note : "Il reste
les plaques astrographiques de Sobral qui donnent une déviation de
0,93", discordantes par une quantité au-delà des limites des erreurs
accidentelles. Pour les raisons déjà longuement exposées, peu de poids
est accordé à cette détermination." Plus loin, apparaît la conclusion
catégorique: "Les résultats de Sobral et Principe laissent peu de
doute qu'une déviation de la lumière existe au voisinage du Soleil et
qu'elle est d'une amplitude exigée par la théorie de la relativité
généralisée d'Einstein." Les données gênantes ont donc tout simplement
été escamotées."

http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "L'épilogue du dernier test de la relativité,
celui de l'orbite de Mercure, est encore plus passionnant. Ce fut en
réalité un test a posteriori de la théorie, puisque la prédiction a
fait suite à l'observation et ne l'a pas précédée. L'accord est
stupéfiant. Le décalage observé dans la position de Mercure est de
43,11" par siècle, tandis que la prédiction de la relativité est de
42,98" par siècle ! Cette révision de l'horloge cosmique est toujours
considérée comme le grand succès d'Einstein, mais elle est encore sous
l'épée de Damoclès. En effet, des scientifiques soupçonnent que le
Soleil pourrait ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique et un
"aplatissement" réel introduirait une correction supplémentaire. La
précision actuelle deviendrait alors le talon d'Achille compromettant
le bel accord de la théorie."

http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet Bidaud: "Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on
découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très
faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut
supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite
qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à
cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles
caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur
gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation
est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée
pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse
aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson,
en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker
entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une
température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même,
le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20
km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le
grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la
mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il
mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de
corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique,
le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s,
et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés
comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test
de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se
congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat,
pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance
effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était
largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington,
l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup
plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge
mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses
plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné
d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude
a bien été envisagée."

Pentcho Valev

https://webspace.utexas.edu/aam829/1...tzEinstein.pdf
"In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not
because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it
seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications.
By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence
against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the
mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more
reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific
concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source,
like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with
Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source
even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster
than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its
velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and
simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law
for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth.
Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that
only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a
theory to show that it entails even one or another of these
consequences...."

Yet schizophrenia was to triumph over sanity: "Ritz est déjà trop
faible pour enseigner, et le poste est finalement donné à Einstein":

http://www.savs.ch/fr/component/docm...ire-de-la-savs
Walther Ritz, Une contribution valaisanne au développement de la
physique au début du XXe siècle
Catherine Pralong-Fauchère
"Sa dernière année de vie est prolifique du point de vue scientifique.
Sa réputation s'accroît et l'université de Zurich le considère comme
le meilleur parmi 9 candidats possibles pour sa nouvelle chaire de
physique théorique. Cependant, Ritz est déjà trop faible pour
enseigner, et le poste est finalement donné à Einstein. En avril, Ritz
reçoit la visite d'Henri Poincaré qui s'excuse au nom de l'Académie
des Sciences de Paris de ne pas lui avoir attribué 2 ans plus tôt le
Prix Vaillant, promettant que cette injustice serait réparée. Mais
cette aide arrive trop tard. Walther Ritz, atteint de tuberculose,
doit entrer à la clinique de Göttingen à la mi-mai; il y meurt 7
semaines plus tard, le 7 juillet 1909. Il a donc 31 ans."

Pentcho Valev