A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

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

Einstein Cult and Ignatius of Loyola



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 13th 19, 10:47 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,233
Default Einstein Cult and Ignatius of Loyola

The observer (receiver) starts moving towards the light source with constant speed v. The speed of the pulses as measured by the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v, and the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=c'/d, where d is the distance between the pulses:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

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

Einsteinians accept the formula

f'=c'/d

but don't accept it presented in this way:

c'=df'

When they look at c'=df' they see c'=c and sing "Divine Einstein":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lE-I2I4i00

http://www.everythingimportant.org/E...neEinstein.jpg

The reason behind such a behavior was explained by Ignatius of Loyola, long time ago:

Ignatius of Loyola: We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what I see as white is black, if the hierarchical Church defines it thus.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqAuyByXQAASu-Z.jpg

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old April 13th 19, 04:48 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,233
Default Einstein Cult and Ignatius of Loyola

Einsteinians are shown texts explicitly stating that the speed of any waves (light waves included) VARIES with the speed of the observer:

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity Vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: V' = V+Vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f' = V'/λ = (V+Vo)/λ." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

"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://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

Einsteinians look at the texts and clearly see that the speed of light DOES NOT VARY with the speed of the observer:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqAuyByXQAASu-Z.jpg

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old April 14th 19, 07:46 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,233
Default Einstein Cult and Ignatius of Loyola

Banesh Hoffmann clearly explains that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" (as was the case in 1887), the Michelson-Morley experiment proves Newton's variable speed of light (c'=c±v) and disproves the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein:

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Wikipedia: Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c ± v, explains the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

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

The following revelations are staggering:

John Norton: "To it, we should add that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was unhelpful and possibly counter-productive in Einstein's investigations of an emission theory of light, for the null result is predicted by an emission theory." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1228...n_Discover.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://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

So we have an experiment that in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) unequivocally proved the variable speed of light (c'=c±v) posited by Newton's theory and accordingly disproved the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second ("light") postulate. Yet the brainwashed world resolutely applies Loyola's principle and believes that the experiment has proved constancy of the speed of light (c'=c) and disproved Newton's variable speed of light c'=c±v.

Who is to blame for the brainwashing? According to Stachel and Norton, Einstein is innocent in this case - he was honest and taught that the Michelson-Morley experiment had confirmed the principle of relativity, not the constancy of the speed of light. In contrast, today's Einsteinians ("later writers") are liars and teach that the experiment has proved constancy of the speed of light.

Stachel and Norton are right about today's Einsteinians, but did Einstein really teach the truth? Of course not. He was the author of the hoax:

The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE

The speed of light is VARIABLE as posited by Newton's theory:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0U6R1RXgAEbxnQ.png

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lunacy in Einstein Cult Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 April 5th 19 09:30 PM
Ignatius of Loyola Explains Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 March 31st 19 11:03 PM
Loyola's Principle in Einstein's Schizophrenic World Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 February 26th 17 02:32 PM
EINSTEINIANA AND IGNATIUS OF LOYOLA Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 April 14th 12 07:52 PM
EINSTEINIANA AND IGNATIUS OF LOYOLA Tonico Astronomy Misc 0 April 3rd 12 10:09 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.