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




EINSTEIN'S LIE THAT KILLED PHYSICS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2s1RHuljo
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "One of the towering great achievements of the human mind in our understanding of the universe is Einstein's theories of relativity. (...) It makes only two assumptions: that the speed of light in a vacuum is constant no matter who is doing the measurement and no matter in what direction you are moving or how fast. You always get the same measurement for the speed of light. That's Assumption 1 which by the way the experiment has shown to be true. Assumption 2... (...) Given those two tenets, extraordinary spooky phenomena derive from them." The assumption that "the speed of light in a vacuum is constant no matter who is doing the measurement" was nonsense and Einstein knew that, but he also knew that the "extraordinary spooky phenomena" derivable from it could make him famous: http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatantseeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the MaxwellLorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." Nowadays shameless Einsteinians make fun of the gullible public by informing it that Einstein's hoax was actually "a cosmic conspiracy of the highest order": https://plus.maths.org/content/einsteinrelativity David Tong: "Special relativity is where the famous equation E=mc^2 comes from. The central idea of the theory is that there is a speed limit in our Universe. The laws of physics conspire so that nothing can ever travel faster than the speed of light." http://astro.cornell.edu/academics/c...speedlimit.htm Neil deGrasse Tyson: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything  you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft  shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is a cosmic conspiracy of the highest order." http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1...limit042715/ Robert Scherrer: "In fact, the laws for adding and subtracting speeds have to conspire to keep the speed of the light the same no matter how fast or in what direction an observer is moving. The only way to make this happen is for space and time to expand or contact as objects move." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc329dguFs Brian Greene: "Einstein proposed a truly stunning idea  that space and time could work together, constantly adjusting by exactly the right amount so that no matter how fast you might be moving, when you measure the speed of light it always comes out to be 671000000 miles per hour." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...nutshell.html Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion.. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity." Einsteinians sing the praise of Einstein who made them so powerful and rich by introducing the absurd constancy of the speed of light and the "extraordinary spooky phenomena": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall: "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory.. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..." Pentcho Valev 
Ads 
#2




EINSTEIN'S LIE THAT KILLED PHYSICS
Once upon a time the variable speed of light had an advantage over the constant speed of light: the MichelsonMorley experiment had confirmed it directly, without recourse to idiotic "spooky phenomena" (as Banesh Hoffmann puts it in the text below, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"):
http://ritzbtr.narod.ru/martinez2004pip6.pdf Alberto Martinez: "In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications.. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences...." 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 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. 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." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.pdf John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the MichelsonMorley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when etherbased, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day." http://philsciarchive.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 MichelsonMorley 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 MichelsonMorley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." Nowadays 99% of the Einsteinians ("later writers" in John Norton's text above) fiercely teach that the MichelsonMorley experiment has gloriously confirmed the constancy of the speed of light, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity: http://www.amazon.com/FasterThanSp.../dp/0738205257 Faster Than the Speed of Light, Joao Magueijo: "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 MichelsonMorley 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!" http://www.lecturenotes.co.uk/sussk...alrelativity/ Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=cv and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including MichelsonMorley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c." http://www.amazon.com/WhyDoesmc2S.../dp/0306817586 Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein." http://www.amazon.com/BriefHistory.../dp/0553380168 Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 2: "The special theory of relativity was very successful in explaining that the speed of light appears the same to all observers (as shown by the MichelsonMorley experiment) and in describing what happens when things move at speeds close to the speed of light." Pentcho Valev 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
THE CONSPIRACY THAT KILLED PHYSICS  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  June 7th 15 02:20 PM 
HOW EINSTEIN KILLED PHYSICS  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  3  July 27th 14 11:47 AM 
THE FIELD THEORY THAT KILLED PHYSICS  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  July 19th 14 12:12 AM 
THE WRESTLING THAT KILLED PHYSICS  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  2  August 8th 08 02:48 AM 
THREE FRAUDS THAT KILLED PHYSICS  Pentcho Valev  Astronomy Misc  41  August 31st 07 03:40 PM 