EINSTEINIANA: MIND-BENDING AND BRAINWASHING

http://www.grandforksherald.com/even...cle/id/217926/
"Trying to explain the mind-bending nature of reality that the Theory
of Relativity reveals, the two UND physicists asked the audience to
imagine a car roaring down the road at half the speed of light. When
the driver turns on the headlights, common sense suggests that he
would see a beam of photons - the particles that light is made of -
shoot out ahead of him at, well, light speed. Common sense further
suggests that a pedestrian standing still by the road should see the
photons fly by her at 1.5 times light speed followed shortly by the
car. William Schwalm, one of the physicists, told the audience last
Tuesday that the driver sees the photons moving away from him at light
speed. But the pedestrian, who is not moving, sees the photons moving
away from her at light speed as well."

Yet, even in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the pedestrian sees a
different light - she measures the frequency to be greater than the
frequency the driver measures (Doppler effect). And now the problem:
the pedestrian lives in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world but has not
been brainwashed yet. So she applies the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

and comes to the conclusion that the increase in frequency she
measures can only be the result of the increase in the speed of light
relative to her. "No I don't want to live in Einsteiniana's
schizophrenic world" says the pedestrian and looks around but there is
no other world. In a year or two she will be brainwashed and the
serenity in her life will be restored:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7
George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two
made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that
they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

On Oct 10, 7:12*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.grandforksherald.com/even...cle/id/217926/
"Trying to explain the mind-bending nature of reality that the Theory
of Relativity reveals, the two UND physicists asked the audience to
imagine a car roaring down the road at half the speed of light. When
the driver turns on the headlights, common sense suggests that he
would see a beam of photons - the particles that light is made of -
shoot out ahead of him at, well, light speed. Common sense further
suggests that a pedestrian standing still by the road should see the
photons fly by her at 1.5 times light speed followed shortly by the
car. William Schwalm, one of the physicists, told the audience last
Tuesday that the driver sees the photons moving away from him at light
speed. But the pedestrian, who is not moving, sees the photons moving
away from her at light speed as well."

Yet, even in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the pedestrian sees a
different light - she measures the frequency to be greater than the
frequency the driver measures (Doppler effect). And now the problem:
the pedestrian lives in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world but has not
been brainwashed yet. So she applies the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

and comes to the conclusion that the increase in frequency she
measures can only be the result of the increase in the speed of light
relative to her. "No I don't want to live in Einsteiniana's
schizophrenic world" says the pedestrian and looks around but there is
no other world. In a year or two she will be brainwashed and the
serenity in her life will be restored:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7
George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two
made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that
they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev


But the speed stays the same and the frequency varies, according to
relativity.

On Oct 10, 7:12*am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.grandforksherald.com/even...cle/id/217926/
"Trying to explain the mind-bending nature of reality that the Theory
of Relativity reveals, the two UND physicists asked the audience to
imagine a car roaring down the road at half the speed of light. When
the driver turns on the headlights, common sense suggests that he
would see a beam of photons - the particles that light is made of -
shoot out ahead of him at, well, light speed. Common sense further
suggests that a pedestrian standing still by the road should see the
photons fly by her at 1.5 times light speed followed shortly by the
car. William Schwalm, one of the physicists, told the audience last
Tuesday that the driver sees the photons moving away from him at light
speed. But the pedestrian, who is not moving, sees the photons moving
away from her at light speed as well."

Yet, even in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world, the pedestrian sees a
different light - she measures the frequency to be greater than the
frequency the driver measures (Doppler effect). And now the problem:
the pedestrian lives in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world but has not
been brainwashed yet. So she applies the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

and comes to the conclusion that the increase in frequency she
measures can only be the result of the increase in the speed of light
relative to her. "No I don't want to live in Einsteiniana's
schizophrenic world" says the pedestrian and looks around but there is
no other world. In a year or two she will be brainwashed and the
serenity in her life will be restored:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7
George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two
made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that
they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev


You only respond "2 + 2 = 5" to someone like Pentcho who mind-numbedly
repeates the same 2 + 2 = 5 thought over and over and over and over
and
5 (DENIGRATE EINSTEIN) GO TO 5

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-10-...-theories.html
Lawrence Krauss: "It's equally important that the speed of light as
the ultimate speed limit has been tested numerous times in many
situations over the last century, and it has held up."

Recently this "ultimate speed limit" has become the most important red
herring in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world. The essence of
Einstein's 1905 light postulate is the assumption that the speed of
light is independent of the speed of the light source. This assumption
was UNEQUIVOCALLY refuted in 1887:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with
an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Einstein's 1905 light postulate is also UNEQUUIVOCALLY refuted by the
Pound-Rebka experiment:

A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an
observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the
observer).

Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating
rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and
speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the
back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).

Consider equations (13.2) on p. 3 in David Morin's text:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
f' = f(1 + v/c) = f(1 + gh/c^2) (13.2)

where v is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment of
emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception) in the rocket
scenario. By combining these equations with:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

we obtain THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT:

c' = c + v = c(1 + gh/c^2)

which contradict Einstein's 1905 light postulate. The fundamental
equations of the emission theory can also be obtained from Paul
Fendley's text:

http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
Paul Fendley: "An experiment to test this idea was done in the early
'60s by Pound and Rebka in a tower 20 feet from where my office was as
a graduate student. First consider light shined downward in a freely
falling elevator of height h. Inside the elevator, we're a happy
inertial frame. We say it takes time t=h/c to hit the bottom. We also
say that there's no Doppler shift of the frequency of the light. But
how does this look from the ground? Say the light beam was emitted
just as the elevator was released into free fall (i.e. at zero
velocity). By the time the light hits the bottom of the elevator, it
is accelerated to some velocity v. Since light travels so fast, the
elevator isn't traveling very fast when the light hits the bottom, so
v is pretty small, and we can use non-relativistic formulas for this
(but not the light!). We thus simply have v=gt=gh/c. Now let's see
what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even
without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities
measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an
ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the
ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative
velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1
+ v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are
relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here. Now back to
our experiment. In the freely-falling elevator, we're inertial and
measure the same frequency f at top and bottom. Now to the earth
frame. When the light beam is emitted, the elevator is at rest, so
earth and elevator agree the frequency is f. But when it hits the
bottom, the elevator is moving at velocity v=gh/c with respect to the
earth, so earth and elevator must measure different frequencies. In
the elevator, we know that the frequency is still f, so on the ground
the frequency
f' = f(1 + v/c) = f(1 + gh/c^2)
On the earth, we interpret this as meaning that not only does gravity
bend light, but changes its frequency as well."

By combining the above equations with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

one obtains, again, THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION
THEORY OF LIGHT:

c' = c + v = c(1 + gh/c^2)

which contradict Einstein's 1905 light postulate.

The Pound-Rebka experiment, just like the Michelson-Morley experiment,
UNEQUIVOCALLY confirms THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION
THEORY OF LIGHT and refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin (p. 4): "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."

David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David
Morin, Cambridge University Press

Pentcho Valev

Divine Albert wrestles with the "moving observer" problem:

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..."

Note that the "moving observer" problem Divine Albert wrestled with
cannot be solved in this way. In accordance with the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

either the frequency and the speed of light vary with the speed of the
observer while the wavelength remains independent of the observer's
movement, AS IS THE CASE WITH ANY OTHER WAVE, or, if the speed of
light is to remain independent of the observer's movement (so that
believers can safely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all believe in
relativity, relativity, relativity"), the wavelength will have to
miraculously vary with the speed of the observer, a variation that is
absurd for any other wave. Only the subtlest practitioners of
doublethink in Einsteiniana have the courage to refer to this
miraculous (more precisely, idiotic) variation of the wavelength:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev

A nice metaphor characterizing not only special relativity but
theoretical physics as a whole:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8qx7sc1r
"Special relativity is no different to declaring that the apparent
dwindling size of a departing train and the lower pitch of its whistle
are due to a real shrinking of space on the train and slowing of its
clocks. We know from experience that isn't true. The farce must
eventually play out like the cartoon character walking off the edge of
a cliff and not falling until the realization dawns that there is no
support. But how long must we wait? We are swiftly approaching the
centennial of the big bang. The suspense has become tedious and it is
costing us dearly. Some people are getting angry."

In 1954 Einstein predicted the off-the-edge-of-a-cliff-and-not-falling
situation:

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf...09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein (1954): "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."

Bryan Wallace, the martyr, indicated the ultimate saboteur: Einstein's
1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
The Farce of Physics, Bryan Wallace: "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."

Pentcho Valev

Divine Albert and Honest Albert:

http://bartleby.net/173/14.html
Divine Albert: "Experience has led to the conviction that, on the one
hand, the principle of relativity holds true, and that on the other
hand the velocity of transmission of light in vacuo has to be
considered equal to a constant c. By uniting these two postulates we
obtained the law of transformation for the rectangular co-ordinates x,
y, z and the time t of the events which constitute the processes of
nature. In this connection we did not obtain the Galilei
transformation, but, differing from classical mechanics, the Lorentz
transformation."

An imaginary creature called "Honest Albert" would have written:

Honest Albert: "In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment should have
led to the conviction that, on the one hand, the principle of
relativity holds true, and that on the other hand the velocity of
transmission of light in vacuo has to be considered, in accordance
with Newton's emission theory of light, equal to c+v, where v is the
speed of the emitter relative to the observer. By uniting these two
postulates we can obtain the law of transformation for the rectangular
co-ordinates x, y, z and the time t of the events which constitute the
processes of nature. In this connection we should have confirmed the
Galilei transformation, but, differing from classical mechanics, we
established the Lorentz transformation."

Pentcho Valev