A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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'S RELATIVITY : NEVER ENDING FRAUD



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 30th 14, 11:41 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY : NEVER ENDING FRAUD

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cr...nk-relativity/
"In 1971 - 16 years after Einstein's death - the definitive experiment to test Einstein's relativity was finally carried out."

In 1971 the previous "definitive experiment" was exposed as downright fraud and Einsteinians badly needed new fraudulent confirmations of Divine Albert's Divine Theory:

http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topi...trust-the-data
"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger - 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). IT HAS BEEN KNOWN FOR SOME TIME THAT BOTH EDDINGTON'S ESTIMATE AND ADAMS' MEASUREMENT UNDERESTIMATED THE TRUE SIRIUS B GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT BY A FACTOR OF FOUR."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H
"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported.. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H..Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second."

http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?f...TE-052-456.pdf
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
  #2  
Old August 31st 14, 07:25 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY : NEVER ENDING FRAUD

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17779917
Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains. J. C. Hafele, Richard E. Keating, Science, New Series, Vol. 177, No. 4044, Jul. 14, 1972, pp. 166-168: "Because the earth rotates, standard clocks distributed at rest on the surface are not suitable in this case as candidates for coordinate clocks of an inertial space. Nevertheless, the relative timekeeping behavior of terrestrial clocks can be evaluated by reference to hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space."

By "hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space" Hafele and Keating mean clocks at rest with respect to the center of the Earth. But such clocks are neither nonrotating nor inertial - they rotate around the Sun, around the center of the Galaxy etc. This means that Hafele and Keating checked the reading of a non-inertial clock against the reading of another non-inertial clock, in relative motion with respect to the former, and found that the predictions of Divine Albert's Divine Theory were gloriously confirmed.

Had Einstein predicted anything like that? Consider this:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/23.html
Albert Einstein: "An observer who is sitting eccentrically on the disc K' is sensible of a force which acts outwards in a radial direction... (...) The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks and measuring-rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at exact definitions for the signification of time- and space-data with reference to the circular disc K', these definitions being based on his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise? To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the disc, so that they are at rest relative to it. We now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate from the standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this body, the clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the rotation.. According to a result obtained in Section XII, it follows that the latter clock goes at a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc, i.e. as observed from K."

Einstein refers to Section XII but this Section does not contain any results explaining why the (inertial) clock at the centre of the rotating disc should run FASTER than the (non-inertial) clock placed on the edge of the disc. Rather, the results in Section XII are all based on the Lorentz transformation which predicts RECIPROCAL time dilation for two INTERTIAL clocks: either inertial clock (more precisely, the observer in this clock's system) sees the other inertial clock running SLOW by a factor of 1/gamma = sqrt(1-(v/c)^2). The Lorentz transformation does not predict anything about a system of two clocks one of which (in this case the one on the edge of the disc) is not inertial. Yet in the above text Einstein claims (more precisely, lies) that, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION, the inertial K-clock (at the center of the disc) is running FASTER than the non-inertial K'-clock (on the edge of the disc) by a factor of gamma = 1/sqrt(1-(v/c)^2).

Conclusion: Hafele and Keating must have fabricated their results.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old August 31st 14, 10:36 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY : NEVER ENDING FRAUD

A naive physics teacher wondering why Einsteinians do not like to explain how the lifetime of muons "at rest" is measured:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....0/uMUAXDRwgx4J
Stou Sandalski: "Hello, I've used cosmic ray muons as an example in support of special relativity... but every time I mention it, I fear the logical question "Oh but how was the muon lifetime measured at rest"... it hasn't come up yet... but surely one day it will. So how was the muon lifetime measured at rest? Or more accurately who/when/where first measured the muon lifetime at rest. Although I do not doubt that SR is valid (for now), I want to know if people just measured muon decay rates at different velocities and extrapolated (using SR) the lifetime at rest... since that would kind of make for a circular argument when it comes to SR validity."

Tom Roberts, the sci.physics.relativity guru, gives an inconclusive reply but still hints at something important:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci....0/kHl0jr85r_UJ
Tom Roberts: " http://pdg.lbl.gov/ They surely have numerous references giving measurements of muon lifetimes (and, of course, other particles and other properties). While I don't have references, I know there are a number of muon beamlines in the world in which muons are routinely brought to rest, and a measurement of their lifetime would naturally be part of the analysis of other things of interest (e.g. muon catalyzed fusion, which requires stopped muons)."

Note the phrase "muons are routinely brought to rest". In a world different from Divine Albert's schizophrenic world, when fast flying muons crash into an obstacle, they disintegrate more quickly than muons which do not crash.. Like people in cars crashing into walls at 100 miles per hour - they don't live as long as people in non-crashing cars.

In Divine Albert's schizophrenic world non-crashing muons undergo time dilation, an effect predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory, and for that reason live longer than crashing muons (in Divine Albert's world crashing muons are called "muons at rest"):

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad...on-rutgers.pdf
"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay."

http://cosmic.lbl.gov/more/SeanFottrell.pdf
"Experiment 1: The lifetime of muons at rest (...) Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay."

http://www.stanford.edu/~jbarral/Dow...e1-Rapport.pdf
"Les muons qui arrivent au niveau du détecteur sont des particules ultra-relativistes dont la vitesse est proche de c et l'énergie comprise entre 7.5 MeV et 7.5 GeV La détection s'effectue grâce à deux scintillateurs et un bloc de verre au plomb. Les deux scintillateurs mesurent le passage d'une particule cosmique. Le verre au plomb arrête un certain nombre de particules, qui se désintègrent : on mesure alors leur temps de désintégration."

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithab...inparadox.jpeg

http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/23...b094c35ddf.jpg

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old August 31st 14, 04:08 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY : NEVER ENDING FRAUD

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.vi...michelson.html
Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "There is another obvious possibility, which is called the emitter theory: the light travels at 186,300 miles per second relative to the source of the light. The analogy here is between light emitted by a source and bullets emitted by a machine gun. The bullets come out at a definite speed (called the muzzle velocity) relative to the barrel of the gun. If the gun is mounted on the front of a tank, which is moving forward, and the gun is pointing forward, then relative to the ground the bullets are moving faster than they would if shot from a tank at rest. The simplest way to test the emitter theory of light, then, is to measure the speed of light emitted in the forward direction by a flashlight moving in the forward direction, and see if it exceeds the known speed of light by an amount equal to the speed of the flashlight. Actually, this kind of direct test of the emitter theory only became experimentally feasible in the nineteen-sixties. It is now possible to produce particles, called neutral pions, which decay each one in a little explosion, emitting a flash of light. It is also possible to have these pions moving forward at 185,000 miles per second when they self destruct, and to catch the light emitted in the forward direction, and clock its speed. It is found that, despite the expected boost from being emitted by a very fast source, the light from the little explosions is going forward at the usual speed of 186,300 miles per second. In the last century, the emitter theory was rejected because it was thought the appearance of certain astronomical phenomena, such as double stars, where two stars rotate around each other, would be affected. Those arguments have since been criticized, but the pion test is unambiguous. The definitive experiment was carried out by Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964)."

http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...et_al_1964.pdf
Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region, Alväger, T.; Farley, F. J. M.; Kjellman, J.; Wallin, L., 1964, Physics Letters, vol. 12, Issue 3, pp.260-262

High energy particles bump into a beryllium target and as a result gamma photons leave the target and travel at c relative to the target. Antirelativists do not see how this can refute the emission theory but Einsteinians do. They teach that initially a pion is generated inside the beryllium target and this pion travels at 0.9999c inside the target and decays into two gamma photons inside the target and therefore this pion is a moving source of light. And since the source travels at c inside the target, the gamma photons must travel at 2c if the emission theory is correct but they don't - they travel at c as gloriously predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory!

If the emission theory had predicted that the products of the disintegration of the pion should travel at 2c, it would be the silliest theory in the history of science. The straw man built by Alväger & Co is obviously idiotic, and yet the experiment is cited as the most convincing confirmation of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate.

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed - a constant that physicists denote by the letter c: 300,000 km per second, or as Americans refer to it, 186,000 miles per second. The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. (...) The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics."

http://happynicetimepeople.com/wp-co...peed-limit.jpg

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
EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY UNBEARABLE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 13 February 12th 11 04:55 PM
EINSTEIN FRAUD CAMOUFLAGED BY JOURNAL NATURE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 186 August 31st 08 11:06 PM
THE OFFICIAL END OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 16 June 6th 08 04:34 PM
GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 962 December 17th 07 01:45 PM
THE RELATIVITY FRAUD: SIMPLE AND MONUMENTAL Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 16 May 11th 07 03:03 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.