Discussion:
The Two Fundamental Lies in Einstein's Schizophrenic World
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-14 20:50:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message

On The Frontiers Of Astronomy 09 Einstein's Relativity. Alex Filippenko Lecture

My comment on YouTube:

Alex Filippenko teaches the two fundamental lies on which Einstein's relativity is based:

1. Maxwell's 19th century theory showed that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

2. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that the speed of light is the same for all observers.

Ninety-nine percent of the Einsteinians teach those lies but the truth does show up sometimes:

John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds..."

Wikipedia: "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)."

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

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

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-02-15 07:45:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
http://youtu.be/9m9Zo5UHn-0
On The Frontiers Of Astronomy 09 Einstein's Relativity. Alex Filippenko Lecture

My second comment on YouTube:

Moving muons live longer than muons "at rest" thanks to time dilation, teaches Alex Filippenko at 13:53. This is a classical hoax in the world of Einstein. How are muons "at rest" defined, and how does one measure their lifetime? Here is the answer:

Quote: "The lifetime of muons at rest [...] Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay. The amount of time that a muon existed before it reached the detector had no effect on how long it continued to live once it entered the detector. Therefore, the decay times measured by the detector gave an accurate value of the muon's lifetime. After two kinds of noise were subtracted from the data, the results from three data sets yielded an average lifetime of 2.07x 10^(-6)s, in good agreement with the accepted value of 2.20x 10^(-6)s."

Quote: "In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..."

Clearly the muons "at rest" are not at rest actually - they are undergoing a catastrophe. Their speed instantly changes from almost 300000 km/s to zero. For that reason the lifetime of muons "at rest" is shorter than the lifetime of moving muons (which are not undergoing a catastrophe). There is no time dilation.

Pentcho Valev

Loading...