VERIFICATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

In the absence of length contraction (one assumes that length
contraction is absurd) the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY
refutes Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate (c'=c) and
confirms the antithesis, the equation c'=c+v given by Newton's
emission theory of light.

Is length contraction absurd? The following references give a
straightforward answer to this question:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...barn_pole.html
"These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors
at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a
switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in
the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the
speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special
Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the
direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if
the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the
reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes
through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the
barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your
switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least
momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The
runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept
shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If
the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest
in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no
such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not
stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it
was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it
is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back
to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other
end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be
trapped IN A COMPRESSED STATE inside the barn."

http://www.quebecscience.qc.ca/Revolutions
Stéphane Durand: "Pour mieux comprendre le phénomène de ralentissement
du temps, il est préférable d'aborder un autre phénomène tout aussi
paradoxal: la contraction des longueurs. Car la vitesse affecte non
seulement l'écoulement du temps, mais aussi la longueur des objets.
Ainsi, une fusée en mouvement apparaît plus courte que lorsqu'elle est
au repos. Là aussi, plus la vitesse est grande, plus la contraction
est importante. Et, comme pour le temps, les effets ne deviennent
considérables qu'à des vitesses proches de celle de la lumière. Dans
la vie de tous les jours, cette contraction est imperceptible.
Cependant, si une fusée de 100 m passait devant nous à une vitesse
proche de celle de la lumière, elle pourrait sembler ne mesurer que 50
m, ou même moins. Bien sûr, la question qui vient tout de suite à
l'esprit est: «Cette contraction n'est-elle qu'une illusion?» Il
semble tout à fait incroyable que le simple mouvement puisse comprimer
un objet aussi rigide qu'une fusée. Et pourtant, la contraction est
réelle... mais SANS COMPRESSION physique de l'objet! Ainsi, une fusée
de 100 m passant à toute vitesse dans un tunnel de 60 m pourrait être
entièrement contenue dans ce tunnel pendant une fraction de seconde,
durant laquelle il serait possible de fermer des portes aux deux
bouts! La fusée est donc réellement plus courte. Pourtant, il n'y a
PAS DE COMPRESSION matérielle ou physique de l'engin."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../bugrivet.html
"The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is
similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the
bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it
looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's
point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just
0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the
bug....The paradox is not resolved."

Pentcho Valev

"Pentcho Valev" wrote in message


+--- "Impotent Blithering Non-entity."---+

If the wavelength of light does not vary with the gravitational
potential (one assumes that the variation is absurd), then the Pound-
Rebka experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY refutes Einstein's relativity and
confirms Newton's emission theory of light.

Is a wavelength varying with the gravitational potential absurd? If
the wavelength does vary with the gravitational potential, then, in
the absence of a gravitational field, it varies with the speed of the
observer (that is, if the latter variation is absurd, the former is
absurd too):

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Obviously John Norton does not find a wavelength varying with the
speed of the observer absurd. Others do:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/bethell4.1.1.html
Tom Bethell: "Einstein postulated - assumed - that the speed of light
is a constant irrespective of the motion, not just of the light
source, but also of the observer. And that "observer" part was very
hard to accept. A sound wave travels at a constant speed in air (of a
given temperature and density) whatever the motion of the sound
source. Sound from an airplane travels forward at a speed that is
unaffected by the speed of the plane. But if you travel toward that
approaching sound wave then you must ADD your speed to that of the
plane's sound wave if you are to know the speed with which it
approaches you."

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."

Pentcho Valev

A light source on top of a tower of height h emits light with
frequency f and speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an
observer on the ground with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the
observer).

Equivalently, a light source at the front end of an accelerating
rocket of length h and accelaration g emits light with frequency f and
speed c (relative to the source). The light reaches an observer at the
back end with frequency f' and speed c' (relative to the observer).

Consider equation (13.2) on p. 3 in:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) (13.2)

where v is the relative speed of the light source (at the moment of
emission) and the observer (at the moment of reception) in the rocket
scenario. By combining this equation with:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

we obtain THE FUNDAMENTAL EQUATIONS OF NEWTON'S EMISSION THEORY OF
LIGHT:

c' = c+v = c(1+gh/c^2)

which CONTRADICT EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE. The Pound-
Rebka experiment is compatible with the emission theory's fundamental
equations:

http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Kn...Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin (p. 4): "This GR time-dilation effect was first measured
at Harvard by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m
tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency)
at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were
able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts
in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy."

Einstein explicitly used the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) in the period
1907-1915, then replaced it with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2). This means that, in
Einstein's theories, the speed of light has always been VARIABLE in a
gravitational field. The constancy of the speed of light taught by
Stephen Hawking and other hypnotists in Einsteiniana is a relatively
recent fraud designed to additionally confuse believers' minds:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
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://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
relativity."

David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in:

http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics
With Problems and Solutions
David Morin
Cambridge University Press

Pentcho Valev

Double-edged experiments in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world (John
Norton and Tom Roberts are famous hypnotists in Einsteiniana):

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."

Pentcho Valev

The confession that, apart from gloriously confirming Einstein's 1905
constant-speed-of-light postulate (c'=c), the Michelson-Morley
experiment somehow confirms the antithesis, the equation c'=c+v given
by Newton's emission theory of light, has only come recently, when
theoretical physics is irreversibly dead, the scientific rationality
is completely destroyed and the public couldn't care less about both
c'=c and c'=c+v:

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."

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" is also a statement, true or false, that the public
couldn't care less about. In fact, it was Divine Albert who first used
the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light postulate of
special relativity":

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...66838A 639EDE
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."

Needless to say, "later writers almost universally" continue to teach
the blatant lie according to which the Michelson-Morley experiment
confirms Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of light postulate (and the
public couldn't care less about what later writers almost universally
teach):

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! Einstein's 1905 special theory of
relativity was in part a response to this astonishing result. What
Einstein realized was that if c did not change, then something else
had to give. That something was the idea of universal and unchanging
space and time. This is deeply, maddeningly counterintuitive. In our
everyday lives, space and time are perceived as rigid and universal.
Instead, Einstein conceived of space and time-space-time-as a thing
that could flex and change, expanding and shrinking according to the
relative motions of the observer and the thing observed. The only
aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And
ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into
the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are
written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of
light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the
vocabulary of physics. Hundreds of experiments have verified this
basic tenet, and the theory of relativity has become central to our
understanding of how the universe works."

Pentcho Valev