Discussion:
Einsteinian Brian Cox Against Senator Malcolm Roberts
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-08-07 13:57:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Brian Cox and Malcolm Roberts. Malcolm Roberts and Brian Cox. It's one of the great rivalries of the modern era. Only not really, because one of them is a highly respected scientist and the other is Malcolm Roberts." http://junkee.com/brian-cox-shade-malcolm-roberts/116631

Journalists are biased. Brian Cox is an Einsteinian, which means pathological liar. Just an example:

Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw: Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), 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." https://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306818760

These are 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:

"That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf

"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

"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

"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

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-08-07 21:12:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Brian Cox flies towards the spotlight at 0.75c and informs the gullible audience that the light hits him in the face at c, not 1.75c, and that this was a prediction of Maxwell's 19th century theory:


Einstein's Relativity

This independence of the speed of light from the speed of the observer is too idiotic to be Maxwell's idea - it can only be Einstein's idea:

http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "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."

"Nonsense" is euphemism - the correct term is "idiocy". When the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed v, the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/λ to f'=(c+v)/λ=f(1+v/c):

http://www.hep.man.ac.uk/u/roger/PHYS10302/lecture18.pdf
"The Doppler effect - changes in frequencies when sources or observers are in motion - is familiar to anyone who has stood at the roadside and watched (and listened) to the cars go by. It applies to all types of wave, not just sound. [...] Moving Observer. Now suppose the source is fixed but the observer is moving towards the source, with speed v. In time t, ct/λ waves pass a fixed point. A moving point adds another vt/λ. So f'=(c+v)/λ."

http://docplayer.net/35188128-Modern-physics-notes-spring-2007-paul-fendley-lecture-35.html
"Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."

Does this mean that the speed of the light relative to the observer shifts from c to c'=c+v? Yes. Consider the following setup:

A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the speed of the pulses to be c and the frequency to be f=c/d, where d is the distance between the pulses:

Loading Image...

The observer starts moving with constant speed v towards the light source - the frequency he measures shifts from f=c/d to f'=(c+v)/d:

Loading Image...

The following formula is correct:

f' = c'/d

where c' is the speed of the pulses as measured by the moving observer. Clearly,

c' = c + v.

That is, the speed of the pulses varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity. Any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect unavoidably leads to the same conclusion:

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html
"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vo)/λ."

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. [...] Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

Stationary receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif

Moving receiver: http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.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: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." [end of quotation]

Let us jump into the moving receiver's frame of reference. The frequency we measure is

f' = (c + (1/3)c)/d

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses. The speed of the pulses relative to us is, accordingly,

c' = df' = (4/3)c = 400000 km/s,

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Einsteinians may wish to introduce relativistic corrections (time dilation), in an attempt to save Divine Albert's Divine Theory. The effect would be small and, to their surprise, in the unfavorable direction. The speed of the moving receiver is (1/3)c so gamma is 1.05. Accordingly, the corrected f' is (1.05)*(4/3) s^(-1) and the corrected c' is (1.05)*(400000) km/s. Einstein's relativity is even more violated.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-08-08 14:14:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Brian Cox and brothers Einsteinians (there is a sister as well) sing in praise of Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light postulate and its idiotic consequences:


Brian Cox, Michio Kaku, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall: "Now, listen carefully. The faster you move, the heavier you get. 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..."

Do brothers Einsteinians believe the idiocies they teach? Yes. They are victims of brainwashing - in their early education they were told absurdities, repeatedly, until in the end they became indistinguishable from Bingo the Clowno:


Bingo the Clowno

Here is a clear example of the conversion of normal people into thoughtless bingos: Initially Joe Wolfe's students are sure that the speed of light cannot be the same for differently moving observers but in the end all of them get the name Bingo the Einsteiniano:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm
Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding."

Pentcho Valev

Loading...