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

Einstein's Frauds Become Noticeable



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 21st 20, 02:44 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's Frauds Become Noticeable

"So chapter 5 discusses the basic principle of relativity which, as I understand it, is mainly the Galilean idea of relative velocity and direction, pretty straightforward stuff. Einstein talks about reference frame K and another reference frame K' which moves with respect to K. Then in chapter 7, he discusses the propagation of light. As he's building to the point that c is constant regardless of reference frame, he uses the example of light c being measured by an observer riding in a train and he says that the apparent speed of light w, according to Galilei-Newton mechanics, would be the difference between c and the observer's velocity v. I know that this is experimentally incorrect but what I don't get is that he says that that point is "in conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in section 5" but I don't see how that's true. [...] I'm just kind of confused by what he means here because it seems to me as if he's saying the opposite of the truth. It seems that, in Galilei-Newtonian relativity, the idea that w = c - v, though experimentally incorrect, is in direct accord with the principle of relativity..." https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/com...and_something/

My comment on Reddit (Einsteinians may delete it of course):

Yes, w = c - v is in direct accord with the principle of relativity, and no, it is not "experimentally incorrect". Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment unambiguously proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light:

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old June 21st 20, 07:02 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's Frauds Become Noticeable

The speed of light is OBVIOUSLY variable, so extraordinary brainwashing is needed to convince the world that it is constant. If the world can be misled into believing that constant speed of light is a consequence of the principle of relativity, or, what is equivalent, that variable speed of light contradicts the principle of relativity, the danger is removed and the theory is saved. Constancy of the speed of light turns out to be just as true as the principle of relativity.

Einstein and Feynman did manage to mislead the gullible world:

Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Albert Einstein, On the Principle of Relativity: "After all, when a beam of light travels with a stated velocity relative to one observer, then - so it seems - a second observer who is himself traveling in the direction of the propagation of the light beam should find the light beam propagating at a lesser velocity than the first observer does. If this were really true, then the law of light propagation in vacuum would not be the same for two observers who are in relative, uniform motion to each other - in contradiction to the principle of relativity stated above." https://einsteinpapers.press.princet.../vol6-trans/16

Richard Feynman: "Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should be c-u. For instance, if the car is going 100,000 mi/sec, and the light is going 186,000 mi/sec, then apparently the light going past the car should go 86,000 mi/sec. In any case, by measuring the speed of the light going past the car (if the Galilean transformation is correct for light), one could determine the speed of the car. A number of experiments based on this general idea were performed to determine the velocity of the earth, but they all failed - they gave no velocity at all." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old June 22nd 20, 10:31 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's Frauds Become Noticeable

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light. In 1921 Einstein, already a deity, declared that the experiment had proved constant speed of light, and the blatant lie has been universally taught ever since (insane ideology, not science):

The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light:

"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

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
Get the AGW frauds next! Nightcrawler Misc 2 December 24th 09 06:11 PM
THREE FRAUDS THAT KILLED PHYSICS Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 41 August 31st 07 03:40 PM
some sorry lexical trainer merges frauds in addition to Rashid's amazing submission Admiral Rudy U. Licausi Amateur Astronomy 0 August 12th 07 07:07 AM
two classes of readily noticeable common, ubiquitous, uniform bright blue sources in deep background (Murray mesh) of HUDF, dwarf galaxy luminous bare clumps, hyper novae?: 2005.04.01 BG and DM Elmegreen: Malcolm Fairbairn: Murray 2005.11.11 Rich Murray Amateur Astronomy 2 November 12th 05 06:33 AM
ATTN: Kooks, Frauds and Saucerheads - You can be SAVED from Gubbermint Intrusion! Twittering One Misc 0 June 30th 05 05:36 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:36 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.