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

GLORIOUS CONFIRMATIONS OF DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 1st 11, 08:35 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default GLORIOUS CONFIRMATIONS OF DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY

In the era of Postscientism experiments are double-edged - they
gloriously confirm Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light
postulate but, for some unknown reason, they confirm the true
antithesis given by Newton's emission theory of light as well:

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.phys.ncku.edu.tw/mirrors/...periments.html
Tom Roberts: "The Michelson-Morley experiment (MMX) was intended to
measure the velocity of the Earth relative to the “lumeniferous ether”
which was at the time presumed to carry electromagnetic phenomena. The
failure of it and the other early experiments to actually observe the
Earth's motion through the ether became significant in promoting the
acceptance of Einstein's theory of Special Relativity, as it was
appreciated from early on that Einstein's approach (via symmetry) was
more elegant and parsimonious of assumptions than were other
approaches (e.g. those of Maxwell, Hertz, Stokes, Fresnel, Lorentz,
Ritz, and Abraham)."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...abc7dbb30db6c2
John Norton: "THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: "Sure. The fact that this one experiment is compatible
with other theories does not refute relativity in any way. The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity."
Pentcho Valev: "THE POUND-REBKA EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN
EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
Tom Roberts: "Sure. But this experiment, too, does not refute
relativity. The full experimental record refutes most if not all
emission theories, but not relativity."

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.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."

So a single experiment is inconclusive in the era of Postscientism.
One can only challenge Divine Albert's Divine Theory by considering
ALL experiments or at least the majority of them, plus all
interpretations ever made. This may take years, even decades, but in
the end one will surely come to Tom Roberts' conclusion: "The full
experimental record refutes most if not all emission theories, but not
relativity."

Pentcho Valev

  #2  
Old March 1st 11, 09:17 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default GLORIOUS CONFIRMATIONS OF DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY

Einsteiniana's textbooks teach that cosmic-ray muons moving at a speed
close to c live much longer than muons "at rest", and that this
gloriously confirms time dilation, the idiotic consequence of
Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate. Then
textbooks explain how the lifetime of moving muons is measured but
usually don't mention the experimental procedure allowing Einsteinians
to assess the lifetime of muons "at rest". How do Einsteinians measure
the lifetime of muons "at rest"? When cosmic-ray muons bump into an
obstacle so that their speed instantly changes from about 300000km/s
to zero, their forced and quick disintegration makes Einsteinians sing
"Divine Einstein" and go into convulsions. Why? Simply because
rationality in the era of Postscientism is so devastated that, as the
muon undergoes such a terrible crash, Einsteinians can safely say 'Lo,
a muon at rest' and infer that non-crashing (moving) muons live longer
than crashing ("at rest") muons, in perfect accordance with Divine
Albert's Divine Theory:

http://courses.washington.edu/phys433/muon_lifetime.pdf
"The STOPPED muon will decay into an electron or positron... (...) The
muon lifetime is measured to be 2.19703 x 10^(-6) s."

http://web.mit.edu/lululiu/Public/pi...pixx/muons.pdf
"A muon that COMES TO REST in the detector induces one signal upon
entry and another upon decay."

http://www.particle.kth.se/~pearce/muonlab/muonlab.pdf
"The purpose of this laboratory is to measure the lifetime of cosmic-
ray muons. The experimental technique is straight-forward. Cosmic ray
muons are STOPPED in an aluminium target which is sandwiched between
plastic scintillator detectors... (...) A stopping muon is indicated
by a signal in the top and middle scintillators but no signal in the
bottom scintillators. The time between the muon stopping and its decay
(a further signal in the middle or bottom scintillator) is measured
with an electronics system."

Pentcho Valev

  #3  
Old March 2nd 11, 08:18 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default GLORIOUS CONFIRMATIONS OF DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY

In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world
"experimental verification of the theory as a whole" would be a silly
concept. Complex theories are too malleable and can practically be
made "consistent" with any experiment. Conversely, complex experiments
can practically be made "consistent" with any theory:

http://www.algerie-dz.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=166853
"C'est elle qui va l'amener à tenter d'intégrer la notion de
gravitation à la théorie de la relativité restreinte, publiée en 1905
et selon laquelle le temps ne s'écoule pas de la même façon en tout
lieu. Comment intégrer la gravitation à la relativité restreinte ?
Einstein pressent que les outils mathématiques nécessaires à cette
tâche sont complexes. En 1912, il quitte Prague, où il a obtenu en
1909 son premier poste universitaire, et retourne à Zurich, la ville
de ses études, rechercher l'aide du mathématicien hongrois Marcel
Grossmann, rencontré bien des années auparavant à l'Institut
polytechnique. L'histoire est connue : Grossmann soumet à Einstein
l'utilisation d'un tenseur, un outil mathématique, pour décrire la
géométrie de l'espace et du temps mêlés. "Einstein estime que le
tenseur proposé par Grossmann est trop complexe, trop mathématique,
explique Etienne Klein. Il le rejette, lui préférant un tenseur plus
simple, plus "physique"." Le résultat du travail des deux savants est
une ébauche de relativité générale, publiée en 1912. Comment la
tester ? C'est à ce moment de l'histoire que commence celle, méconnue,
du manuscrit Einstein-Besso. Le physicien convoque son ami et
confident suisse pour l'aider à mener les calculs et tester son
ébauche de relativité générale sur un problème bien connu des
astronomes : l'anomalie de l'orbite de Mercure. "Depuis la fin du XIXe
siècle, on sait de manière de plus en plus précise que le périhélie de
cette planète (le point de son orbite le plus proche du Soleil) avance
un peu plus que le prévoient les équations de Newton : l'excédent est
de 43 secondes d'arc par siècle, c'est-à-dire l'angle sous lequel on
voit un cheveu à une distance d'un mètre, explique Etienne Klein.
Einstein se dit simplement que sa théorie sera validée si elle prédit
correctement cette "anomalie" de l'avance du périhélie de Mercure."
Une part du manuscrit Einstein-Besso est consacrée à ce test crucial.
Aux pages d'Einstein, des lignes d'équations, sans ratures, presque
vierges de tout texte, succèdent celles de Besso, un peu plus
hésitantes et annotées de nombreuses explications. Le résultat est
calamiteux. Au lieu d'expliquer le petit décalage de 43 secondes d'arc
par siècle, la nouvelle théorie propose une avance de plus de 1 800
secondes d'arc par siècle. Très loin de la réalité des observations
astronomiques ! "Mais, un peu plus loin dans le manuscrit, les deux
hommes se rendent compte qu'ils se sont trompés sur la masse du
Soleil", dit Etienne Klein. Une erreur d'un facteur 10, qu'ils
corrigent finalement, pour parvenir à un résultat moins absurde, mais
toujours décevant : 18 secondes d'arc par siècle... Echec complet ? Un
peu plus loin, en conclusion d'un tout autre calcul, Einstein écrit :
"Stimmt" ("Correct"). "En dépit de l'échec de sa théorie à expliquer
l'avance du périhélie de Mercure, Einstein croit avoir démontré autre
chose, au détour d'une équation, décrypte Etienne Klein. En mai 1907,
il avait eu l'intuition qu'une chute libre peut "annuler" un champ de
gravitation. Ici, il pense avoir démontré qu'un mouvement de rotation
peut, lui aussi, être considéré comme équivalent à un champ de
gravitation. Il croit avoir généralisé son principe d'équivalence."
Mais, plus de deux ans plus tard, Einstein comprend que son calcul
était faux : il n'a rien généralisé du tout. C'est alors qu'il accepte
d'utiliser dans sa théorie le premier tenseur, jugé trop complexe, que
lui avait proposé Grossmann. Et en 1915, il teste ce nouveau tenseur
sur l'avance du périhélie de Mercure. Cette fois, le résultat est le
bon !"

http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com...-deuxieme.html
"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire
aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations
étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet
espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du
périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement
de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent
finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le
résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse
du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des
observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous
voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la
théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein.
Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la
difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours,
il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."

http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "L'épilogue du dernier test de la relativité,
celui de l'orbite de Mercure, est encore plus passionnant. Ce fut en
réalité un test a posteriori de la théorie, puisque la prédiction a
fait suite à l'observation et ne l'a pas précédée. L'accord est
stupéfiant. Le décalage observé dans la position de Mercure est de
43,11" par siècle, tandis que la prédiction de la relativité est de
42,98" par siècle ! Cette révision de l'horloge cosmique est toujours
considérée comme le grand succès d'Einstein, mais elle est encore sous
l'épée de Damoclès. En effet, des scientifiques soupçonnent que le
Soleil pourrait ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique et un
"aplatissement" réel introduirait une correction supplémentaire. La
précision actuelle deviendrait alors le talon d'Achille compromettant
le bel accord de la théorie."

http://www.oxfordreference.com/pages...ies__sample_01
From A Dictionary of Scientists: "In 1915 Einstein, while completing
his 1916 paper on General Relativity, calculated Mercury's perihelion
precession on the basis of his own theory and found that, without
making any extra assumptions, the missing 43" were accounted for. The
discovery, Einstein later reported, gave him palpitations and "for a
few days I was beside myself with joyous excitement." The theory also
predicted (1907) that electromagnetic radiation in a strong
gravitation field would be shifted to longer wavelengths - the
Einstein shift. This was used by Walter Adams in 1925 to explain the
spectrum of Sirius B."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational
Redshift of Sirius B
Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona.
"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://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
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."

In contrast, in a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic
world, "verification of a postulate in a simple experiment" would be a
reasonable concept. For instance:

An emitter on top of a tower of height h sends light towards the
ground. The light reaches the ground with speed c'=c(1+gh/c^2)
according to Newton's emission theory of light (an equation equivalent
to the antithesis of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light
postulate, c'=c+v, showing how, in the absence of a gravitational
field, the speed of light varies with v, the speed of the emitter),
and with speed c'=c(1+2gh/c^2) according to Einstein's final version
of general relativity.

In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift factor to
be 1+gh/c^2. In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic
world this experimental result would confirm c'=c+v, the antithesis of
Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, and refute any
statement incompatible with c'=c+v.

In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the Pound-Rebka result
gloriously confirms any prediction of Divine Albert's Divine Theory.
Einsteinians never mention Newton's emission theory of light when
discussing the Pound-Rebka experiment:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."

Pentcho Valev

  #4  
Old March 10th 11, 08:03 AM posted to sci.astro,sci.math
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default GLORIOUS CONFIRMATIONS OF DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY

http://www.ipgp.fr/~tarantola/Files/...tivity_GPS.pdf
Neil Ashby: "It's been almost a century since Einstein introduced the
special theory of relativity. All observational tests to date confirm
both the special and the general theory. These tests have ranged from
sensitive laboratory experiments involving optics, atoms, nuclei, and
subnuclear particles to the observation of orbiting clocks, planets,
and objects far beyond the Solar System. (...) Numerous relativistic
issues and effects play roles in the global positioning system, on
which millions of drivers, hikers, sailors, and pilots depend to find
out where they are.The GPS system is, in effect, a realization of
Einstein's view of space and time. Indeed, the system cannot function
properly without taking account of fundamental relativistic
principles. (...) THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE ON WHICH GPS NAVIGATION
WORKS IS AN APPARENTLY SIMPLE APPLICATION OF THE SECOND POSTULATE OF
SPECIAL RELATIVITY - NAMELY, THE CONSTANCY OF c, THE SPEED OF LIGHT."
Neil Ashby is a professor of physics at the University of Colorado in
Boulder. Since 1974, he has been a consultant to NIST, Boulder, on
relativistic effects on clocks.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in
a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as
well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were
not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field
of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation
in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,'
Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf
). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in
the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."

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)."

http://www-physics.ucsd.edu/students.../lecture16.pdf
Convention we will choose:
u = velocity of observer or source
v = velocity of wave
Moving Observer
Observer approaching: f'=(1/T')=(v+u)/(lambda)
Observer receding: f'=(1/T')=(v-u)/(lambda)

http://www.expo-db.be/ExposPrecedent...%20Doppler.pdf
6. Source immobile - Observateur en mouvement
La distance entre les crêtes, la longueur d'onde lambda ne change pas.
Mais la vitesse des crêtes par rapport à l'observateur change !
L'observateur se rapproche de la source
f' = V'/(lambda)
f' = f (1 + Vo/V)
L'observateur s'éloigne de la source
f' = f (1 - Vo/V)

http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/sta...relativity.pdf
The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
Stephan J.G. Gift
"For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits
light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If
the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical
analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c +
v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence
the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which
is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo Fo.
(...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is
difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and
continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years."

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

 




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
HOW ROBERT POUND CONFIRMED DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 6 May 2nd 10 05:54 PM
QUANTUM GRAVITY, DIVINE EINSTEIN, DIVINE MICHELL Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 January 18th 09 10:38 PM
Divine politics klunk Amateur Astronomy 0 September 24th 07 10:18 AM
DIVINE 1911 EINSTEIN Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 May 26th 07 01:21 AM
Divine! HER Electrodynamic Creation MTwain Misc 3 January 9th 07 10:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:11 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.