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 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 13th 11, 07:53 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE

Even if Einstein and his divine theory had never existed, one would
still be able to deduce the fundamental absurdities directly from the
assumption that:

"The speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame":

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
With Problems and Solutions
David Morin
Cambridge University Press
Chapter 11: "The speed of light has the same value in any inertial
frame. (...) This is a rather bizarre statement. It doesn't hold for
everyday objects. (...) The truth of the speed-of-light postulate
cannot be demonstrated from first principles. No statement with any
physical content in physics (that is, one that isn't purely
mathematical, such as, "two apples plus two apples gives four apples")
can be proven. In the end, we must rely on experiment. And indeed, all
the consequences of the speed-of-light postulate have been verified
countless times during the past century. As discussed in the previous
section, the most well-known of the early experiments on the speed of
light was the one performed by Michelson and Morley."

That is, even in a purely Newtonian world, the following VALID
argument would be logically justified:

If the speed of light has the same value in any inertial frame, then
an arbitrarily long object can be trapped inside an arbitrarily short
container and a bug can be both dead and alive:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
"Cependant, si une fusée de 100 m passait devant nous à une vitesse
proche de celle de la lumière, elle pourrait sembler ne mesurer que 50
m, ou même moins. Bien sûr, la question qui vient tout de suite à
l'esprit est: «Cette contraction n'est-elle qu'une illusion?» Il
semble tout à fait incroyable que le simple mouvement puisse comprimer
un objet aussi rigide qu'une fusée. Et pourtant, la contraction est
réelle... mais SANS COMPRESSION physique de l'objet! Ainsi, une fusée
de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être
entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde,
durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux
bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a
PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin. Comment est-ce
possible?"

http://alcor.concordia.ca/~scol/semi...ts/Durand.html
"La contraction une longueur est un phénomène à la fois réel mais sans
déformation structurelle. C'est un phénomène réel (et non pas une
illusion) car, par exemple, une perche dont la longueur au repos est
plus grande que la longueur au repos d'une grange peut réellement être
contenue dans cette dernière si elle se déplace assez rapidement. Par
contre, il ne peut y avoir de contraction structurelle de la perche,
i.e de déformation matérielle de l'objet, car la contraction de sa
longueur aurait aussi lieu si c'était plutôt l'observateur qui se
mettait en mouvement sans changer l'état de mouvement de la perche.
Autrement dit, sans changer l'état de la perche, en se mettant soi-
même en mouvement, on change sa longueur: ce n'est donc clairement pas
une contraction matérielle (l'état de la perche est le même dans les
deux cas)."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

However, if Einstein and his divine theory had never existed, the
sanitary logical procedure called REDUCTIO AD ABSURDUM would not be
long-forgotten and the absurdity of the consequences would
unequivocally prove the falsehood of the assumption. As for David
Morin's fraudulent claim that the Michelson-Morley experiment
confirmed Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (perhaps
the most important lie in Einsteiniana), fortunately doublethink
forces Einsteinians to tell the truth sometimes:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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."

James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp.
39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant
aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre
les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par
exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à
un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la
vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la
lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière
se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à
l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui
d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par
rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une
certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister
sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA
LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT
AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.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://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

  #2  
Old February 15th 11, 08:44 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE

A direct consequence of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate (in combination with the principle of relativity) is
RECIPROCAL time dilation:

You move relative to me at a constant speed in a straight line. Then I
measure your clock to be slower than mine and you measure mine to be
slower than yours. Both observations are correct.

In 1905 Einstein had not yet realized that reciprocity was an
unavoidable feature so he offered a sensational conclusion that did
not follow from his 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:

You go and return in a polygonal or circular movement. At the end of
your journey both of us find my clock to have run FASTER than yours.

So the original absurdity (RECIPROCAL time dilation) became malignant
- nothing was able to save scientific rationality. A nice analysis has
been published by Peter Hayes:

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
Peter Hayes: "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: "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 Einstein’s 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."

Pentcho Valev

  #3  
Old February 16th 11, 08:46 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE

Light waves put aside, as the observer starts moving towards the wave
source, the frequency and the speed of the wave relative to the
observer increase while the wavelength remains constant (physically,
there can be no relation between the speed of the observer and the
wavelength). Yet:

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)."

Although the idea that the wavelength of the coming light could depend
on the speed of the observer is, physically, more than absurd, John
Norton is forced to stick to and even teach it - otherwise Einstein's
1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate would prove false. Roger
Barlow, School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester,
does not want to teach absurdities. For him, as the observer starts
moving towards the light source, the frequency and the speed of the
coming light (relative to the observer) increase while the wavelength
(lambda) remains constant:

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)."

Pentcho Valev

  #4  
Old February 16th 11, 10:12 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE

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 equation (13.2) on p. 3 in:

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 this equation 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 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT
POSTULATE.

Einstein explicitly used the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) in the period
1907-1915, then replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2).

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

  #5  
Old February 17th 11, 08:35 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE

Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate as arising
from the continuous-field model of light:

http://sami5001.buzznet.com/user/jou...y-gravitation/
Albert Einstein in Scientific American, 1950: "The introduction of the
field as an elementary concept gave rise to an inconsistency of the
theory as a whole. Maxwell's theory, although adequately describing
the behavior of electrically charged particles in their interaction
with one another, does not explain the behavior of electrical
densities, i.e., it does not provide a theory of the particles
themselves. They must therefore be treated as mass points on the basis
of the old theory. The combination of the idea of a continuous field
with that of material points discontinuous in space appears
inconsistent. A consistent field theory requires continuity of all
elements of the theory, not only in time but also in space, and in all
points of space. Hence the material particle has no place as a
fundamental concept in a field theory. Thus even apart from the fact
that gravitation is not included, Maxwell's electrodynamics cannot be
considered a complete theory. (...) Maxwell's equations imply the
"Lorentz group," but the Lorentz group does not imply Maxwell's
equations. The Lorentz group may indeed be defined independently of
Maxwell's equations as a group of linear transformations which leave a
particular value of the velocity - the velocity of light - invariant."

So "the combination of the idea of a continuous field with that of
material points discontinuous in space appears inconsistent", which
means that Einstein's special relativity cannot be reconciled with
Newton's emission theory of light presenting light as discontinuous
particles and predicting that the speed of those particles varies with
the speed of the emitter, just as the speed of cannonballs does. Yet
in 1909 and in 1954 again Einstein confessed that Newton's emission
theory of light is (at least partially) correct:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_De...e_of_Radiation
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein, 1909
EINSTEIN'S 1909 CONFESSION: "A large body of facts shows undeniably
that light has certain fundamental properties that are better
explained by Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation
theory. For this reason, I believe that the next phase in the
development of theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light
that can be considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission
theories. The purpose of the following remarks is to justify this
belief and to show that a profound change in our views on the
composition and essence of light is imperative.....Then the
electromagnetic fields that make up light no longer appear as a state
of a hypothetical medium, but rather as independent entities that the
light source gives off, just as in Newton's emission theory of
light......Relativity theory has changed our views on light. Light is
conceived not as a manifestation of the state of some hypothetical
medium, but rather as an independent entity like matter. Moreover,
this theory shares with the corpuscular theory of light the unusual
property that light carries inertial mass from the emitting to the
absorbing object."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/ind...ecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
EINSTEIN'S 1954 CONFESSION: "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."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."

Driven by doublethink, clever Einsteinans give additional support to
Newton's emission theory of light from time to time:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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."

James H. Smith "Introduction à la relativité" EDISCIENCE 1969 pp.
39-41: "Si la lumière était un flot de particules mécaniques obéissant
aux lois de la mécanique, il n'y aurait aucune difficulté à comprendre
les résultats de l'expérience de Michelson-Morley.... Supposons, par
exemple, qu'une fusée se déplace avec une vitesse (1/2)c par rapport à
un observateur et qu'un rayon de lumière parte de son nez. Si la
vitesse de la lumière signifiait vitesse des "particules" de la
lumière par rapport à leur source, alors ces "particules" de lumière
se déplaceraient à la vitesse c/2+c=(3/2)c par rapport à
l'observateur. Mais ce comportement ne ressemble pas du tout à celui
d'une onde, car les ondes se propagent à une certaine vitesse par
rapport au milieu dans lequel elles se développent et non pas à une
certaine vitesse par rapport à leur source..... Il nous faut insister
sur le fait suivant: QUAND EINSTEIN PROPOSA QUE LA VITESSE DE LA
LUMIERE SOIT INDEPENDANTE DE CELLE DE LA SOURCE, IL N'EN EXISTAIT
AUCUNE PREUVE EXPERIMENTALE."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.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://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

  #6  
Old February 21st 11, 08:23 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE

From time to time dead scientific rationality surprisingly shows signs
of life and questions the absurd consequences of Einstein's 1905 false
constant-speed-of-light postulate but Einsteiniana immediately kills
it again:

http://gizmodo.com/#!5765603/this-an...d-twin-paradox
"Casey Chan - Einstein's Twin Paradox is super confusing for me, every
time I think I fully understand it, I find more questions. The Twin
Paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity when one twin
travels to outer space while the other twin stays on Earth. When the
space bound twin lands back on Earth, he'll find that his Earthbound
twin has aged much more than he has. Why is that? Watch this video to
find out the simple explanation with animated cartoons."

Note the following argument advanced in the video and universally
accepted in the era of Postscientism: It is because only the
travelling twin is PHYSICALLY experiencing acceleration, that the
Earthbound twin has aged much more than the traveller.

More signs of life coming from the scientific rationality's corpse:

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

  #7  
Old February 26th 11, 08:43 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.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."

Is it true that "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity" and did not use it as
support for his 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate? Let us
see:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE
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."

Clearly Einsteiniana's fundamental lie:

"The Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed Einstein's 1905 constant-
speed-of-light postulate"

was devised by Einstein himself. The lie, repeated countless times, is
now a truth (Goebbels' principle):

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from."

http://205.188.238.109/time/time100/...of_rela6a.html
Stephen Hawking: "So if you were traveling in the same direction as
the light, you would expect that its speed would appear to be lower,
and if you were traveling in the opposite direction to the light, that
its speed would appear to be higher. Yet a series of experiments
failed to find any evidence for differences in speed due to motion
through the ether. The most careful and accurate of these experiments
was carried out by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley at the Case
Institute in Cleveland, Ohio, in 1887......It was as if light always
traveled at the same speed relative to you, no matter how you were
moving."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257
Joao Magueijo: "I am by profession a theoretical physicist. By every
definition I am a fully credentialed scholar-graduate work and Ph.D.
at Cambridge, followed by a very prestigious research fellowship at
St. John's College, Cambridge (Paul Dirac and Abdus Salam formerly
held this fellowship), then a Royal Society research fellow. Now I'm a
lecturer (the equivalent of a tenured professor in the United States)
at Imperial College. (...) A missile fired from a plane moves faster
than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the
missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its
speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus
that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to
light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what
the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the
case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that
if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to
each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree
on the same apparent speed! (...) The rest of my research work was
going well, though, and a year or so later I was overjoyed to find
that I had been awarded a Royal Society fellowship. This fellowship is
the most desirable junior research position available in Britain,
perhaps anywhere. It gives you funding and security for up to ten
years as well as the freedom to do whatever you want and go wherever
you want. At this stage, I decided that I had had enough of Cambridge,
and that it was time to go somewhere different. I have always loved
big cities, so I chose to go to Imperial College, in London, a top
university for theoretical physics."

http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_page...vite-26042.php
Marc Lachièze-Rey: "Mais au cours du XIXe siècle, diverses
expériences, et notamment celle de Michelson et Morley, ont convaincu
les physiciens que la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide est
invariante. En particulier, la vitesse de la lumière ne s'ajoute ni ne
se retranche à celle de sa source si celle-ci est en mouvement."

http://www.techno-science.net/?ongle...efinition=1711
"En effet, dès la fin du XIXe siècle, diverses expériences (notamment,
celle de Michelson) et observations laissaient apparaître une vitesse
de la lumière dans le vide identique dans tous les repères
inertiels."

http://www.pauljorion.com/blog/?p=9459
Paul Jorion: "Ce que Michelson et Morley parvinrent à établir grâce à
l'expérience qu'ils réalisèrent en 1887 (Michelson la répéterait en
1897 à lUniversité de Chicago où il enseignait désormais), c'est que
le principe newtonien ne s'applique pas à la lumière. Imaginons cette
fois, que vous vous trouvez sur le toit d'un vaisseau intergalactique
se déplaçant dans l'espace à la moitié de la vitesse de la lumière et
que vous dirigez le faisceau de lumière émanant d'une torche d'un
modèle courant dans la direction où progresse le vaisseau stellaire.
Si le principe newtonien d'addition des vitesses s'appliquait à la
lumière émanant de votre torche, elle voyagerait maintenant à une
vitesse égale à une fois et demie celle de la lumière. Or, ce que l'«
expérience cruciale » de Michelson et Morley révéla, c'est que ce
n'est pas le cas : le principe d'additivité des vitesses ne s'applique
pas : quelle que soit la vitesse à laquelle se déplace l'émetteur de
lumière, la vitesse de la lumière dans le faisceau émis est c : 300
000 kilomètres par seconde, ni plus ni moins. Autrement dit, la
vitesse de la lumière est constante (c représente en fait la vitesse
de la lumière dans un vide)."

http://philosophie.initiation.cours....-48902702.html
"A la fin du XIXème siècle, les travaux de deux physiciens, Michelson
et Morley, mirent en évidence le constat suivant : quelque soit le
référentiel utilisé, la vitesse de la lumière est constante, ce qui
est en totale contradiction avec la vision classique ayant cours à
leur époque."

http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/p...at/51relat.htm
Claude SAINT-BLANQUET, Maître de conférences: "Compte tenu des
résultats de l'expérience de Michelson et Morley, on doit renoncer à
la transformation de Galilée."

Pentcho Valev

  #8  
Old February 27th 11, 08:24 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE

Destruction of human rationality in Big Brother's world. First the lie
(2+2=5) is established:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-7.html
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?"

Then believers are invited to discuss related questions, for instance:

"When did Big Brother discover that 2+2=5?".

Destruction of human rationality in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic
world. First the lie ("The Michelson-Morley experiment confirmed
Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate") is established:

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/07/01/w...e-know-it.html
"On July 22 the Einstein Papers Project, located at the California
Institute of Technology in Pasadena, will release the 12th volume of
letters written or received by Albert Einstein - 791 of them - plus
transcripts of several notable lectures and interviews the physicist
gave, covering the year 1921. It was a momentous 12 months.You might
think there are no new revelations to be made about him, but for
Einstein groupies the current volume addresses at least one key
question: what did Einstein know about an 1887 experiment that
discovered that the speed of light is invariant, regardless of the
observer's speed or direction of motion - an idea that forms the core
of special relativity and that Einstein did not mention when he laid
out the theory of special relativity in a 1905 paper? Called the
Michelson-Morley experiment, it disproved the existence of the ether,
a substance once thought to carry light waves and form an absolute
reference frame for space. In their namesake experiment, Albert
Michelson (a physicist who won the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward
Morley (a chemist) showed that the speed of light is always the same
(now known to be 186,282 miles per second) relative to stationary
observers as well as moving ones. Nothing but light has this property:
if you are approaching a car that's moving 30 miles per hour, and
you're moving 30mph as well, the approaching car appears to be coming
at you at 60 mph. Not so with light. If you are traveling at the speed
of light, designated c, toward a light beam moving directly toward
you, it appears to be approaching at c, not 2c."

Then believers are invited to discuss related questions, for instance:

http://www.newsweek.com/2009/07/01/w...e-know-it.html
"Where did Einstein get the idea that the speed of light is invariant,
the key claim of special relativity (which also asserts that motion
causes objects to contract and time to slow down, both of which depend
on the speed of light remaining the same even for observers in
motion)? In his autobiography, he recalled how, at age 16, he imagined
riding on a light beam to chase another light beam, and realizing that
his quarry would move at the speed of light, unchanged by his own
motion relative to it. Einstein was born in 1879, and so would have
been 16 in 1895, eight years after the Michelson-Morley experiment.
It's highly unlikely that a teenager with no connection to the world
of science would have heard about the experiment by then; the real
question is whether he knew of it before 1905, when he was 26 and
putting the finishing touches on special relativity."

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
EINSTEINIANA: COPERNICUS WRONG, EINSTEIN 1905 LIGHT POSTULATE TRUE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 26 November 15th 08 01:03 AM
CARLO ROVELLI ABOUT EINSTEIN 1905 FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 March 19th 08 01:38 PM
EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT GOT RID OF THE FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 October 19th 07 03:14 AM
The Speed of Light is Constant by Defintion brian a m stuckless Astronomy Misc 0 October 16th 05 11:07 PM
Speed of Light: A universal Constant? Stan Byers Astronomy Misc 108 April 28th 05 11:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:14 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.