If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. 


Thread Tools  Display Modes 
#1




Richard Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity
Richard Feynman unwittingly disproves Einstein's relativity in the text below. The number of meters of waves the observer has swept past is (c+v)t. Accordingly, the speed of the light waves relative to the observer is c'=c+v, as per Newton's theory.
Richard Feynman: "Suppose, now, that the source is standing still and is emitting waves at frequency Ï‰_0, while the observer is moving with speed v toward the source. After a certain period of time t the observer will have moved to a new position, a distance vt from where he was at t=0. How many radians of phase will he have seen go by? A certain number, (Ï‰_0)t, went past any fixed point, and in addition the observer has swept past some more by his own motion, namely a number vt(k_0) (the number of radians per meter times the distance). [...] For the case of light, we know that k_0 = (Ï‰_0)/c." https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_34.html See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




Richard Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity
Einstein's ideology is so allpowerful that Einsteinians can safely tell the truth sometimes (no one ever notices):
John Norton: "The MichelsonMorley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsciarchive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf "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 MichelsonMorley 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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/RelativityIt.../dp/0486406768 Albert Einstein Institute: "...you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 196065 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einsteinonline.info/spot...te_dwarfs.html More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev Pentcho Valev 
#3




Richard Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity
The Albert Einstein Institute unwittingly disproves Einstein's relativity (http://www.einsteinonline.info/spot...doppler.html):
Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: https://www.einsteinonline.info/wp...einOnline.gif By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blueshift  the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift." [end of quotation] Since "the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected", the frequency shift is caused by a speedoflight shift, in accordance with the formula (frequency) = (speed of light)/(distance between pulses) See: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev Pentcho Valev 
#4




Richard Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity
Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the MichelsonMorley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light:
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 MichelsonMorley 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." Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/RelativityIt.../dp/0486406768 See mo https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Doppler Effect Disproves Einstein's Relativity  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  July 23rd 20 06:07 PM 
Doppler Effect Disproves Einstein's Relativity  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  March 30th 19 10:58 PM 
Any Relevant Experiment Disproves Einstein's Relativity  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  1  February 10th 19 07:04 PM 
Einstein Shift Disproves Relativity  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  August 8th 17 12:34 PM 
How Richard Feynman Confused Special Relativity  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  December 5th 16 03:42 PM 