Why the Absurd Theory of Einstein Still Holds
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-12-21 22:30:55 UTC
Raw Message
There are a few fundamental lies that have entered popular culture and prevent the general public from seeing the idiocy of Einstein’s relativity. Here is one of them:

Ibrahima Bah, an assistant professor of physics and astronomy, said heading to the future involves moving at incredibly high speed. According to Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity, the clock ticks more slowly for someone moving fast... http://www.baltimoresun.com/health/bs-hs-rudolph-grinch-scrooge-explained-20171219-story.html

The truth is that, according to Albert Einstein’s theory of special relativity, the clock ticks FASTER for someone moving fast:

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow..." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

"The situation is that a man sets off in a rocket travelling at high speed away from Earth, whilst his twin brother stays on Earth. [...] ...the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself." http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox

The above two truthful quotations are perhaps the only exceptions in Internet. All Einsteinians teach the fundamental lie without any hesitation (it is almost literally life-saving):

Brian Greene: "If you're moving relative to somebody else, time for you slows down."

Brian Cox (2:25): "Moving clocks run slowly"

John Gribbin: "Einstein's special theory of relativity tells us how the Universe looks to an observer moving at a steady speed. Because the speed of light is the same for all such observers, moving clocks run slow..." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13117878.000-a-special-theory-of-relativity.html

Neil deGrasse Tyson: "We have ways of moving into the future. That is to have time tick more slowly for you than others, who you return to later on. We've known that since 1905, Einstein's special theory of relativity, which gives the precise prescription for how time would slow down for you if you are set into motion." http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/back-future-30th-anniversary-neil-degrasse-tyson-talks/story?id=32191481

Jim Al-Khalili: "And, the faster you move and the longer you move at that speed, the slower your clock ticks, including your own internal biological clock, and so the slower you age - by tiny, tiny fractions of a second of course." http://www.jimal-khalili.com/blogs/2017/7/20/gravity-and-me-my-bbc4-doc-and-the-problem-with-the-app

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-12-22 11:28:09 UTC
Raw Message
The following revelations are staggering:

John Norton: "To it, we should add that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was unhelpful and possibly counter-productive in Einstein's investigations of an emission theory of light, for the null result is predicted by an emission theory." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12289/1/Einstein_Discover.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." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

So we have an experiment that in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) was consistent with the variable speed of light (c'=c+v) predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and accordingly inconsistent with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light (c'=c) predicted by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second ("light") postulate. Yet the brainwashed world is certain that the experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light. Who is to blame? According to Stachel and Norton, Einstein is innocent in this case - he was honest and taught that the Michelson-Morley experiment had confirmed the principle of relativity, not the constancy of the speed of light. Today's Einsteinians ("later writers") however are liars and teach that the experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light.

Stachel and Norton are right about today's Einsteinians (they are pathological liars) but did Einstein really teach the truth? Of course not. He was the author of the hoax:

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/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-12-22 22:19:07 UTC
Raw Message
What did the Pound-Rebka experiment show? That the velocity difference (acceleration) of photons is "identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall", as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, or that there is gravitational time dilation, as predicted by general relativity (the two predictions are incompatible - cannot be both correct)? The former is the case, which means that the Pound-Rebka experiment unequivocally disproved Einstein’s relativity:

R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr, APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.337

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf

That the speed of falling light varies like the speed of ordinary falling bodies is so obvious that many Einsteinians confirm the fact and so unwittingly disprove Einstein's relativity:

"If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.pdf

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, 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/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html

Yet in the post-truth world the official teaching is this:

"The Pound–Rebka experiment measured the relative redshift of two sources situated at the top and bottom of Harvard University's Jefferson tower. The result was in excellent agreement with general relativity. This was one of the first precision experiments testing general relativity. The experiment was later improved to better than the 1% level by Pound and Snider." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-12-23 11:31:09 UTC
Raw Message
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)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

So in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment was consistent with the variable speed of light (c'=c+v) posited by Newton's emission theory of light and accordingly inconsistent with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second ("light") postulate. Is that true, Einsteinians?

Einsteinians do not answer and ... the absurd theory of Einstein still holds:

Loading Image...

Pentcho Valev