DELIBERATE FRAUD IN EINSTEINIANA

[Pentcho Valev]

Any statement in the following two quotations is a deliberate fraud:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/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.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-1/principles-of-special-relativity/
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'=c-v 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 Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."

The truth:

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

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Is John Norton less dishonest than Susskind, Cox and Forshaw? Not at all. Yet unlike them, he is very intelligent and accordingly is one of the subtlest practitioners of doublethink in Einsteiniana:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17
"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society, those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

f and c are frequency and speed of the waves relative to a stationary observer. f' and c' are frequency and speed of the waves relative to an observer moving towards the wave source with speed v. Textbooks teach that:

for sound waves:

f'/f = (c+v)/c = c'/c

for light waves:

f'/f = (c+v)/c

The equation f'/f = c'/c is forbidden for light waves, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

The top of a tower of height h shoots a bullet downwards with initial speed u. As the bullet reaches the ground, its speed (relative to the ground) is:

u' = u(1 + gh/u^2)

The top of a tower of height h emits a light pulse downwards with initial speed c. As the pulse reaches the ground, its speed (relative to the ground) is:

c' = c(1 + gh/c^2)

Einsteinians admit the validity of and sometimes even deduce the above result:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo
"The light is perceived to be falling in a gravitational field just like a mechanical object would. (...) The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."

Still, since the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) is extremely dangerous for Einsteiniana, Einsteinians confuse the whole issue by teaching two false alternatives:

False alternative c' = c:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, p. 236: "If the light falls in strict accord with the principle of equivalence, then, as it falls, its energy should increase by exactly the same fraction that it increases for any other thing we could imagine dropping. We need to know what happens to the light as it gains energy. In other words, what can Pound and Rebka expect to see at the bottom of their laboratory when the dropped light arrives? There is only one way for the light to increase its energy. We know that it cannot speed up, because it is already traveling at the universal speed limit, but it can increase its frequency."

False alternative c' = c(1 + 2gh/c^2):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

Pentcho Valev