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 ω_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, (ω_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 = (ω_0)/c." https://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_34.html

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

Pentcho Valev

Einstein's ideology is so all-powerful that Einsteinians can safely tell the truth sometimes (no one ever notices):

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsci-archive.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 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

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 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...te_dwarfs.html

More he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

The Albert Einstein Institute unwittingly disproves Einstein's relativity (http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...doppler.html):

Albert Einstein Institute: "Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

https://www.einstein-online.info/wp-...ein-Online.gif

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - 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 speed-of-light shift, in accordance with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(distance between pulses)

See: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley 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 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." Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

See mo https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev