|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
TRUTH IN EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD
The Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the prediction of Newton's
emission theory of light: the speed of light is VARIABLE and obeys the equation c'=c+v, where c is the speed of light relative to the light source and v is the speed of the light source relative to the obsever. Accordinly, the Michelson-Morley experiment refutes Einstein's 1905 light postulate which states that the speed of light is CONSTANT, independent of the speed of the light source and obeying the equation c'=c. If one strongly wishes to procrusteanize the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment to fit Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity, one should introduce, ad hoc, Divine Miracles - time dilation, length contraction etc. That is the truth, and, somewhat paradoxically, this truth IS taught in Einstein zombie world: 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." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By 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." Yet one should not be misled: people that John Norton calls "later writers" are in fact countless silly Einsteinians who, by repeating the lie countless times, have converted the truth into something useful for clever Einsteinians' careers but for nothing else: http://www.thebigview.com/spacetime/ "The American physicists Michelson and Morley brought the mechanistic worldview into even more trouble. In an experiment, which was designed to measure the velocity of the earth, they found that the speed of light is constant, contrary to what they had expected. They found this characteristic of light to be in disagreement with the Galilean velocity addition formula v'=v1+v2, which means their observation contradicted classical mechanics. Einstein changes everything." http://admission.case.edu/admissions...ws_archive.asp "While in Cleveland, Hawking will receive the Michelson-Morley Award for his outstanding contributions to science. The Michelson-Morley experiment took place at the Case Institute of Technology in 1887, where Albert Michelson and Edward Morley proved that the speed of light is constant, independent by its direction or the speed of its source, discoveries later reflected in Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity." http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc...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.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. 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. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back." http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/smoo...t06_index.html George Smoot: "I have often wondered what special abilities and circumstances led Einstein to his breakthroughs in the miracle year of 1905. When I taught special relativity to my physics students at Berkeley, I tended, like many of my colleagues, to follow a well-worn path: first, the Michelson-Morley experiment ("The most important thing that ever happened in Cleveland"), with its null result on the motion of Earth through the so-called luminerifous aether (thought to be the medium carrying light waves) and its demonstration that the speed of light is constant." Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Delusional disorder - Valev posts over 800 times in a month
On 16 Aug, 09:23, Pentcho Valev wrote:
snip - endless variations on the same old material! If anybody want proof of the problem then I guess Valev's 14,800+ postings – including 809 in July 2008 at an average of 26 per day - might be enough! Valev, posting so many minor variations of the same material would seem to prove this! Martin Nicholson Daventry, UK |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
TRUTH IN EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD
Pentcho Valev wrote:
The Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the prediction of Newton's emission theory of light: the speed of light is VARIABLE and obeys the equation c'=c+v, where c is the speed of light relative to the light source and v is the speed of the light source relative to the obsever. [snip crap] Idiot. NYEKULTURNY. http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 Given any achievable velocities V1 and V2 and any finite lightspeed, Lorentz invariance requires the bound on the relative velocities of V1 and V2 as viewed by any inertial observer in 1 or 2 cannot exceed (V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2] This is transformation of velocities parallel to the direction of motion. For velocities at an arbitrary angle theta, u_parallel = (u'_parallel + v)/(1+(v dot u')/c^2) u_perp = u'_perp/(gamma_v(1+(v dot u')/c^2)) ****ING IMBECILE Proper length and proper time are defined as the length of an object and the amount of time that passes in a comoving frame. A time-like vector in Minkowski space-time selects a preferred frame (coordinate system) in which the t-axis points along the vector and spatial coordinates are orthogonal to it. In this special coordinate system, the t-component of the vector is called its proper length (or proper mass-energy when talking of a 4-momentum vector). OTOH, a light-like vector points along one of the directions contained in the light cone. The light cone is unvariant under all Lorentz transformations. Thus, a light-like vector is simply unable to pick a preferred coordinate system. We cannot make any "proper" measurements of a photon's 4-momentum. http://cc3d.free.fr/Relativity/Relat1.html Special Relativity for yard apes http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html Experimental constraints on Special Relativity http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/ http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039 Experimental constraints on General Relativity Idiot -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
TRUTH IN EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD
Uncle Al wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote: The Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the prediction of Newton's emission theory of light: the speed of light is VARIABLE and obeys the equation c'=c+v, where c is the speed of light relative to the light source and v is the speed of the light source relative to the obsever. [snip crap] Idiot. NYEKULTURNY. http://arXiv.org/abs/0706.2031 Given any achievable velocities V1 and V2 and any finite lightspeed, Lorentz invariance requires the bound on the relative velocities of V1 and V2 as viewed by any inertial observer in 1 or 2 cannot exceed (V1 + V2)/[1 +(V1)(V2)/c^2] Al is the big idiot here as usual. Al screams the answer for (V1+V2) is wrong all alone yet he then uses it inside the above bull**** by showing he thinks (wrong answer)/[1+(V1)(V2)/c^2] will be correct even with the "wrong answer" used inside it. LOL Poor Uncle Al also does not understand the limitations of using lightspeed as a measurement and when you use a limited measurement device, you end up limiting the true answer. Uncle Al is yet another that has been "tricked" by the light. In a closing speed condition such as 2 object heading towards the collision point at 0.9c each would end up with a closing speed of 1.8c and poor Unlce Al would think he had more time that he really would simply because of the use of the observational limitation (transform) that would fool him. -- James M Driscoll Jr Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory Spaceman |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
TRUTH IN EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD
On Aug 16, 6:19*pm, Uncle Al wrote:
Pentcho Valev wrote: The Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the prediction of Newton's emission theory of light: the speed of light is VARIABLE and obeys the equation c'=c+v, where c is the speed of light relative to the light source and v is the speed of the light source relative to the obsever. [snip crap] Idiot. *NYEKULTURNY. Cleverest Uncle Al, the Bulgarian word for NYEKULTURNY is NEKULTUREN which is very close to the Russian spelling of course. Now the problem is that you would call neither John Norton nor Banesh Hoffmann "Idiot. UNCULTURED" although the "crap" interpretation is theirs, not mine: 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." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC "Relativity and Its Roots" By 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." Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD IS GETTING SUSPICIOUS | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 12 | November 3rd 07 10:19 AM |
INTROSPECTION IN EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 3 | October 23rd 07 07:04 AM |
NEW AETHER IN EINSTEIN ZOMBIE WORLD | Pentcho Valev | Astronomy Misc | 1 | October 12th 07 10:03 AM |
Albert Einstein, the Rational World and the Zombie World | brian a m stuckless | Policy | 0 | October 25th 05 09:48 PM |
Albert Einstein, the Rational World and the Zombie World | brian a m stuckless | Astronomy Misc | 0 | October 25th 05 09:48 PM |