How Einsteinians Brainwash the World

Einsteinians have discovered that brainwashing is much more efficient if you teach both the lie and the truth ("the lie always one leap ahead of the truth") rather than just repeating the lie. So the chasing-a-light-beam thought experiment, a hoax Einstein fabricated in 1946, is being both worshiped and debunked in Einstein schizophrenic world:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/01/op...eam-rider.html
Walter Isaacson: "Einstein’s first great thought experiment came when he was about 16. He had run away from his school in Germany, which he hated because it emphasized rote learning rather than visual imagination, and enrolled in a Swiss village school based on the educational philosophy of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, who believed in encouraging students to visualize concepts. While there, Einstein tried to picture what it would be like to travel so fast that you caught up with a light beam. If he rode alongside it, he later wrote, “I should observe such a beam of light as an electromagnetic field at rest.� In other words, the wave would seem stationary. But this was not possible according to Maxwell’s equations, which describe the motion and oscillation of electromagnetic fields. The conflict between his thought experiment and Maxwell’s equations caused Einstein “psychic tension,� he later recalled, and he wandered around nervously, his palms sweating. Some of us can recall what made our palms sweaty as teenagers, and those thoughts didn’t involve Maxwell’s equations. But that’s because we were probably performing less elevated thought experiments."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...n_Discover.pdf
John Norton: "Behind Einstein’s Chasing a Light Beam Thought Experiment. These cartoonish impersonations of Einstein’s thought experiment are possible because Einstein’s account of the thought experiment is brief, cryptic and puzzling. First, the events recounted happened in late 1895 or early 1896. Yet Einstein mentions Maxwell’s equations, the key equations of the 19th century electrodynamics. He did not learn them until his university studies around 1898. Einstein’s first report of the thought experiment in his own writings comes in 1946. The thought experiment does not appear in the 1905 special relativity paper, in any later writings prior to 1946 or in correspondence. Second, unlike the luminous clarity of Einstein’s other thought experiments, it is not at all clear how this thought experiment works. In the dominant theories of the late nineteenth century, light propagates as a wave in a medium, the luminiferous ether. It was an entirely uncontroversial result in the theory that, in a frame of reference that moved with the light, the wave would be static.."

The above contradictory texts do not imply that Walter Isaacson is a liar while John Norton is honest (Einstein schizophrenic world is not black and white). Rather, Isaacson and Norton are practitioners of doublethink so either of them accepts both the thesis and the antithesis. Here is John Norton teaching that Einstein took the constancy of the speed of light from Maxwell's electromagnetic theory, and that in Maxwell's theory the speed of light was actually variable:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...les/index.html
John Norton: "Why Einstein should believe the light postulate is a little harder to see. We would expect that a light signal would slow down relative to us if we chase after it. The light postulate says no. No matter how fast an inertial observer is traveling in pursuit of the light signal, that observer will always find the light signal to be traveling at the same speed, c. The principal reason for Einstein's acceptance of the light postulate was his lengthy study of electrodynamics, the theory of electric and magnetic fields. The theory was the most advanced physics of the time. Some 50 years before, Maxwell had shown that light was merely a ripple propagating in an electromagnetic field. Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of the ripple was a quite definite number: c."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Einstein schizophrenic world:

http://www.ferovanemocnice.cz/images...es/f_pic31.jpg

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"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. [...] 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

For all waves (light waves included), when the initially stationary observer starts moving towards the wave source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ, where c is the speed of the waves relative to the stationary observer and λ is the wavelength.. Given the formula

(measured frequency) = (speed of the waves relative to the observer)/(wavelength),

the shift in frequency entails that the speed of the waves relative to the observer has shifted from c to c'=c+v, a conclusion which, when applied to light waves, topples Einstein's relativity.

The only way to save relativity is to assume that the the motion of the observer miraculously changes the wavelength of the incoming light, even though this does not happen for any other type of wave. Relativity is saved if, as the observer starts moving towards the source with speed v, the wavelength of the light he is going to meet shifts from λ to λ'=cλ/(c+v).

This ad hoc wavelength-shift assumption is similar to the ad hoc length-contraction assumption of FitzGerald and Lorentz and is likewise idiotic. Clever Einsteinians know that and never discuss it - they just teach it, as it were, implicitly.

Still there is one exception. John Norton, perhaps the cleverest living Einsteinian, teaches the idiotic wavelength-shift assumption explicitly:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ved/index.html
John Norton: "Every sound or light wave has a particular frequency and wavelength. In sound, they determine the pitch; in light they determine the color. 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)."

Why is John Norton teaching the idiocy as if he believes it? Actually he does believe it, or, more precisely, both believes and does not believe it:

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4010/4...22552b04_z.jpg

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwe...hapter2.9.html
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. [...] 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." x

Pentcho Valev

Steve Carlip, Professor of physics at the University of California, Davis: The speed of light is constant by definition. Einstein said the speed of light is variable in a gravitational field - an interpretation which is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense - but after Einstein the speed of light in a gravitational field became constant and is going to remain so forever. So constant that "it does not even make any sense to say that it varies". Yet, in a gravitational field, "light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary slow matter":

http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Phy..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Is c, the speed of light in vacuum, constant? At the 1983 Conference Generale des Poids et Mesures, the following SI (Systeme International) definition of the metre was adopted: The metre is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second. This defines the speed of light in vacuum to be exactly 299,792,458 m/s. This provides a very short answer to the question "Is c constant": Yes, c is constant by definition! [...] Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: "...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [...] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. This interpretation is perfectly valid and makes good physical sense, but a more modern interpretation is that the speed of light is constant in general relativity. [...] Finally, we come to the conclusion that the speed of light is not only observed to be constant; in the light of well tested theories of physics, it does not even make any sense to say that it varies."

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

In Big Brother world there is doublethink; in Einstein schizophrenic world, apart from doublethink, there is also triplethink, quadruplethink and even quintuplethink:

http://images.techiezlounge.com/post/2010/09/7.jpg

Pentcho Valev

As I have already said, brainwashing is much more efficient if you teach both the lie and the truth ("the lie always one leap ahead of the truth") rather than just repeating the lie:

The lie (taught almost universally): Einstein's 1905 second postulate had experimental support:

http://bostonreview.net/books-ideas/...cs-cern-part-5
Matthew Buckley, a theoretical physicist, professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Rutgers: "Even the most famous examples of triumphant, elegant theory—Einstein’s theories of special and general relativity—were responses to an experimental fact: that every measurement of the speed of light gave the same answer, regardless of frame of reference."

The truth: Einstein's 1905 second postulate had no experimental support:

http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-S.../dp/048668895X
Introduction to Special Relativity, James H. Smith, p. 42: "We must emphasize that at the time Einstein proposed it [his second postulate], there was no direct experimental evidence whatever for the speed of light being independent of the speed of its source. He postulated it out of logical necessity."

More truth: Without recourse to additional absurd assumptions (in Banesh Hoffmann's terms, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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."

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

Pentcho Valev