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

The Last Refuge of Cowards in Einstein's Schizophrenic World



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 7th 17, 08:51 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,680
Default The Last Refuge of Cowards in Einstein's Schizophrenic World

David Spergel: "The way we have advanced in science is by falsifiability. By developing hypotheses, testing them (that's why we do experiments) and ruling things out. Ideas that are not testable, it's interesting metaphysics, perhaps interesting for philosophers. What has driven four hundred years of scientific progress is the fact that ideas can be wrong. And, the multiverse, I think is kind of the last refuge of cowards..." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9821

Who are the cowards? Einsteinians hiding from the fact that Einstein's relativity has been unequivocally falsified - by Doppler measurements, by the Michelson-Morley experiment, by the Pound-Rebka experiment. Let me start with the Doppler effect:

Einstein's 1905 assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source was false but sounded reasonable - an analogous statement is true for waves other than light. However, combined with the principle of relativity, the assumption entails an obvious idiocy - the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer as well:

John Stachel: "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." https://history.aip.org/history/exhi...relativity.htm

The fact that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer is as obvious as 2+2=4 (Einstein's nonsensical conclusion that it doesn't is equivalent to Big Brother's 2+2=5):

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. [...] Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

Stationary receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif

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

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." [END OF QUOTATION]

"Four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" means that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver (observer) is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev
Ads
  #2  
Old December 7th 17, 05:53 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,680
Default The Last Refuge of Cowards in Einstein's Schizophrenic World

Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

Albert Einstein, ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 1905: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." http://www.fourmilab..ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

If interpreted correctly, the Doppler effect directly refutes the postulated independence from "the state of motion of the emitting body". Here are incorrect interpretations - Einstein's relativity is saved by the false ad hoc assumption that the wavelength or the distance between subsequent pulses is changed by the moving light source:

Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/s...ry_of_time.pdf

Albert Einstein Institute: "We will start with a very simple set-up, which you can see in the following animation. On the right-hand side, drawn in green, there is a sender that emits pulses in regular succession. On the left-hand side there is a receiver, drawn in blue. The pulses themselves are drawn in red, and they all travel at the same speed from right to left. Everytime the sender emits a new pulse, a yellow indicator light flashes once. Likewise, a flashing light indicates when a pulse has reached the receiver:

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

Next, let us look at a slightly different situation, where the source is moving towards the detector. We assume that the motion of the sender does not influence the speed at which the pulses travel, and that the pulses are sent with the same frequency as before. Still, as we can see in the following animation, the motion influences the pulse pattern:

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

The distance between successive pulses is now smaller than when both sender and receiver were at rest. Consequently, the pulses arrive at the receiver in quicker succession. If we compare the rates at which the indicator lights at the receiver and at the sender are flashing, we find that the indicator light at the receiver is flashing faster." [END OF QUOTATION] http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler

Einsteinians make the following assumption above, which is essentially identical to Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:

Assumption 1: "The motion of the sender does not influence the speed at which the pulses travel."

Assumption 1 goes hand in hand with another assumption:

Assumption 2: "The distance between successive pulses is now smaller than when both sender and receiver were at rest."

Assumption 2 is false - the pulses do not bunch up when the source (sender) is moving. If they did, by measuring the (variable) distance between the pulses, an observer in the frame of the source would know whether he is moving or at rest, which contradicts the principle of relativity.

Since Assumption 2 is false, Assumption 1 is false as well. If the speed of the moving source is v, the speed of the light relative to the receiver is c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old December 7th 17, 11:34 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,680
Default The Last Refuge of Cowards in Einstein's Schizophrenic World

In 1887 Michelson and Morley had calculations showing that the two beams should arrive at different times, but the experiment demonstrated no time difference at all - the two beams arrived at the same time.

The calculations were based on a false assumption - Michelson and Morley had assumed that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter. So the first thing the Michelson-Morley experiment refuted was this assumption. If Michelson and Morley had assumed that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter, as predicted by Newton's emission theory, the experimental result would have matched the calculations:

"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

Since the refuted assumption, "the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter", became one of Einstein's postulates in 1905, it is fair to say that Einstein's relativity was experimentally refuted before it was created.

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 has disproved the constancy of the speed of light but the brainwashed world is certain that the experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light. Who is to blame? 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. Today's Einsteinians ("later writers") however are liars and teach that the experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light.

Stachel and Norton are right about today's Einsteinians (they are pathological liars) 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

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
Contradictions in Einstein Schizophrenic World Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 July 30th 16 08:47 AM
Panic in Einstein Schizophrenic World Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 March 19th 16 09:05 PM
DOUBLETHINK IN EINSTEIN'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 26th 15 09:41 AM
AMAZEMENT IN EINSTEIN'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 December 7th 14 02:28 PM
EINSTEIN'S SCHIZOPHRENIC WORLD Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 August 12th 14 08:52 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.