CRITICS OF RELATIVITY WRONG, A PROPONENT RIGHT

Pentcho Valev wrote:
Surfer wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:31:08 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


Surfer wrote:
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:


We should (everything
else being equal) prefer the notion that light behaves like other wave
phenomena (such as sound). This would allow us to bring back space and
time as absolutes. And it would, to a large extent, restore the
classical world view of Isaac Newton."

Something along those lines is examined in he

On the Consistency between the Assumption of a
Special System of Reference and Special Relativity
Foundations of Physics,Vol.36,No.12,December 2006
http://web.ist.utl.pt/d3264/publicat/art16.pdf

See "3.A FORMAL GALILEO TRANSFORMATION"

It shows how clocks and rulers could be defined that automatically
compenstate for time dilation/length contraction etc., to allow
Galilean transformations between coordinates.

Unfortunately, such devices appear too difficult to build.


http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf John
Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH
AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer.


Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?

Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka are not enough?

In what way are they relevant?

Eg. Have any papers been written that use the emission theory of light
to analyse these experiments?

No. Rather, countless papers have been written declaring that
Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka gloriously confirm Einstein's
relativity. Einstein's world is like Big Brother's world:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/ George Orwell "1984":
"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?"

That Michelson-Morley is consistent with the emission theory is almost
obvious; all hypnotists in Einstein criminal cult would admit this
when asked directly. When they are not asked however they always sing
the same misleading song:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Stephen Hawking: "Both
Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles,
rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and
made to fall back on the star. 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."

As for Pound-Rebka, the analysis is easy. The result they obtained,
f'=f(1+V/c^2), where f is the frequency, is consistent with Einstein's
1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) which is equivalent to c'=c+v. If c'=c+v
were wrong and c'=c were the correct equation, Pound and Rebka would
have obtained f'=f.

Pentcho Valev

"Surfer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 23:51:14 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:
....
The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer.


Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?

It is compatible with the MMX but there are several that
falsify it. Ritz proposed the idea in 1908 and Sagnac
performed an experiment which disproved it in 1913. He
measured the light from a moving source and found it was
the same as if it wasn't moving. That effect is now the
basis of ring laser and interferometric gyros.

It had already been pointed out that binary systems
should show multiple images because light from one side
of the orbit (when the star is moving towards us) would
travel towards us faster than that emitted from the other
side and over some distance would pass the slower light.
That may have been difficult to test at the time as the
stars have to be close together to be moving fast enough
to show the effect but it should appear in spectroscopic
binaries and would be obvious with today's technology.

The idea would also lead to light passing close to the
Sun arriving earlier than if the Sun weren't there but
in fact it arrives later.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/deflection-delay.html

HTH
George

On Jun 27, 1:19 am, Surfer wrote:

The emission theory of light states that the speed of light is
invariant, c, relative to the light source, but is variable, c'=c+v,
relative to the observer, where v is the relative speed of the light
source and the observer.

Are there any experiments which demonstrate this?

-- Surfer

No. But there are a lot of experiments that "falsify this".

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:40:02 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:

...countless papers have been written declaring that
Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka gloriously confirm Einstein's
relativity. Einstein's world is like Big Brother's world:


You have a point. But are you aware of the following paper?

"The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of 3-
Space and Absolute Motion"
Cahill R.T.
Australian Physics, 46, 196-202, Jan/Feb 2006.

There is a related paper he
Dynamical 3-Space: A Review
http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146

Some quotes:

"In 2002 it was discovered that a dynamical 3-space had been detected
many times, including by the Michelson-Morley 1887 light-speed
anisotropy experiment."

"Michelson and Morley in 1887 should have announced that the speed of
light did depend of the direction of travel, that the speed was
relative to an actual physical 3-space."

"It was Miller [3] who recognised that in the 1887 paper the theory
for the Michelson interferometer must be wrong. To avoid using that
theory Miller introduced the scaling factor k , even though he had no
theory for its value."

"By making some 8,000 rotations of the interferometer at Mt. Wilson in
1925/26 Miller determined the first estimate for k and for the
absolute linear velocity of the solar system."

"Such rotation-induced fringe shifts clearly show that the speed of
light is different in different directions. The claim that
Michelson interferometers, operating in gas-mode, do not produce
fringe shifts under rotation is clearly incorrect."


Don't you think this shows that Einstein's world is not entirely like
Big Brother's world?

-- Surfer

On Jun 27, 10:57 pm, Surfer wrote:
"

Don't you think this shows that Einstein's world is not entirely like
Big Brother's world?

-- Surfer



Glad to see that you evolved into a full-fledged crank.

Surfer wrote:
On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 08:40:02 -0700, Pentcho Valev
wrote:

...countless papers have been written declaring that
Michelson-Morley and Pound-Rebka gloriously confirm Einstein's
relativity. Einstein's world is like Big Brother's world:


You have a point. But are you aware of the following paper?

"The Michelson and Morley 1887 Experiment and the Discovery of 3-
Space and Absolute Motion"
Cahill R.T.
Australian Physics, 46, 196-202, Jan/Feb 2006.

There is a related paper he
Dynamical 3-Space: A Review
http://aps.arxiv.org/abs/0705.4146

Some quotes:

"In 2002 it was discovered that a dynamical 3-space had been detected
many times, including by the Michelson-Morley 1887 light-speed
anisotropy experiment."

"Michelson and Morley in 1887 should have announced that the speed of
light did depend of the direction of travel, that the speed was
relative to an actual physical 3-space."

"It was Miller [3] who recognised that in the 1887 paper the theory
for the Michelson interferometer must be wrong. To avoid using that
theory Miller introduced the scaling factor k , even though he had no
theory for its value."

"By making some 8,000 rotations of the interferometer at Mt. Wilson in
1925/26 Miller determined the first estimate for k and for the
absolute linear velocity of the solar system."

"Such rotation-induced fringe shifts clearly show that the speed of
light is different in different directions. The claim that
Michelson interferometers, operating in gas-mode, do not produce
fringe shifts under rotation is clearly incorrect."


Don't you think this shows that Einstein's world is not entirely like
Big Brother's world?

Remember there are so called Prolls in Big Brother's world that are
allowed to do and say anything they want. Big Brother even cares about
"cheap pornography to keep the Prolls happy". There are countless
examples of "cheap pornography" in Einstein's world - Joao Magueijo's
writings for instance:

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Sp.../dp/0738205257

Yet Einstein's world is doomed. Its fundamental principle:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is
always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is
independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

is FALSE. Nature has decided that it should be false and Einstein
criminal cult will not be able to camouflage the falsehood forever.

Pentcho Valev