CATASTROPHE IN PHYSICS
Pentcho Valev
activity that an "enemy" would give:
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate
farce!....The speed of light is c+v."
Still sometimes accounts produced in Einsteiniana are surprisingly
similar to Bryan Wallace's one: the catastrophe in physics is often
described in an equivalent way and only the ultimate cause, Einstein's
1905 false light postulate, is more or less camouflaged. It seems
Einsteiniana's unbearable absurdities are capable of bursting even
minds that create and teach them, minds totally alien to any
rationality:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=317&Itemid=81&lecture_id=3576
John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
hm, ha ha ha."
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics
"Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum
Mechanics"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/6873094/Large-Hadron-Collider-failure-will-leave-science-back-in-the-wilderness.html
"Former Harvard professor Shahriar Afshar said that failure to find
the particle would bring current scientific theory tumbling down like
a house of cards with nothing to replace it. The controversial
physicist, whose Afshar experiment has already found a loophole in
quantum theory, said that unless the scienitific community starts
contemplating a "plan B", failure could lead to "chaos and
infighting". He said failure will undermine more than a hundred years
of scientific theory..."
http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I
didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these
heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to
work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right
track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So,
I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026831.500-what-makes-the-universe-tick.html
"General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
stars, planets and matter."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
are like and how to detect them. Passage exhibits no sign of being an
illusion....Following from the work of Einstein, Minkowski and many
more, physics has given a wonderfully powerful conception of space and
time. Relativity theory, in its most perspicacious form, melds space
and time together to form a four-dimensional spacetime. The study of
motion in space and and all other processes that unfold in them merely
reduce to the study of an odd sort of geometry that prevails in
spacetime. In many ways, time turns out to be just like space. In this
spacetime geometry, there are differences between space and time. But
a difference that somehow captures the passage of time is not to be
found. There is no passage of time. There are temporal orderings. We
can identify earlier and later stages of temporal processes and
everything in between. What we cannot find is a passing of those
stages that recapitulates the presentation of the successive moments
to our consciousness, all centered on the one preferred moment of
"now." At first, that seems like an extraordinary lacuna. It is, it
would seem, a failure of our best physical theories of time to capture
one of time's most important properties. However the longer one works
with the physics, the less worrisome it becomes....I was, I confess, a
happy and contented believer that passage is an illusion. It did
bother me a little that we seemed to have no idea of just how the news
of the moments of time gets to be rationed to consciousness in such
rigid doses.....Now consider the passage of time. Is there a
comparable reason in the known physics of space and time to dismiss it
as an illusion? I know of none. The only stimulus is a negative one.
We don't find passage in our present theories and we would like to
preserve the vanity that our physical theories of time have captured
all the important facts of time. So we protect our vanity by the
stratagem of dismissing passage as an illusion."
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/0415701740
Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in
Contemporary Philosophy)
"Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of
original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and
physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of
Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary
paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed
since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity,
and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys
relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and
physics. There is no other book like this available; hence
philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its
publication."
"UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS
EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE
QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL."
Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to
respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of
time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these
effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the
Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and
radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz
invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and
the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not
purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo-
Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime
include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant
structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian
spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this
picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is
uniquely decomposable into space and time."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Uncle Al
>
> Einsteinians would never give the account of their century-long
> activity that an "enemy" would give:
<http://www.edu-observatory.org/physics-faq/Relativity/SR/experiments.html>
Experimental constraints on Special Relativity
Science 323(5919) 1327 (2009)
Double pulsar J0737-3039A/B is within 0.05% of GR model
http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2861
DI Herculis anomalous orbital precession reconciled with General
Relativity
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
<http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/9148/title/Einstein_Unruffled_Relativity_passes_stringent_new_tests>
<http://einstein.stanford.edu/highlights/status1.html>
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311039
Experimental constraints on General Relativity
<http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf>
Nature 425 374 (2003)
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
<http://www.public.asu.edu/~rjjacob/Lecture16.pdf>
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/index.html>
Relativity in the GPS system
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html>
<http://unusedcycles.wordpress.com/2008/05/30/physics-of-gps-relativistic-time-delay/>
Relativistic effects on orbital clocks
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)
Nature 425 374-376 (2003).
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2006-3/>
Section 3.4.1, Figure 5
falling light
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele-Keating_experiment>
<http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/airtim.html>
<http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/flying_clock_math.pdf>
http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/cesium.shtml
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0008012
Hafele-Keating Experiment
Science 303(5661) 1143;1153 (2004)
http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0401086
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0312071
<http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2005-7/index.html>
<http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1473_1.asp>
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609417
http://www.oakland.edu/physics/mog29/mog29.pdf
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~bretonr/doublepulsar/
Deeply relativistic neutron star binary PSR J0737-3039A/B
16.8995 deg/yr periastron advance
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm
Androcles
"Uncle Al" <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:4B38F0B8...@hate.spam.net...
> Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>
[snip crap]
Idiot.
[snip more crap]
Bigot.
[snip yet more crap]
Arsehole.
Pentcho Valev
nowadays:
http://www.dailyastorian.info/main.asp?SectionID=23&SubSectionID=783&ArticleID=66439
How science has crippled our world view
By Tom Bender, For The Daily Astorian
"With the atom bomb [in fact, with the 1919 eclipse], Einstein became
a god, and our sciences froze into unchallengeable dogma that what we
had stumbled into was the total and absolute truth. We are now paying
the costs."
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock
Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages
57-78
"The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and
research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who
raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A
winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of
Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are
then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics.
Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of
elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing
question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these
circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on
scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of
realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the
theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of
professional discourse."
zzbu...@netscape.net
> The reality of Postscientism is a nightmare for more and more people
> nowadays:
>
> John Stachel: "Einstein discussed the other side of the particle-field
> dualism - get rid of fields and just have particles."
> Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
> cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
> structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
> including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
> contemporary physics."
> John Stachel's comment: "If I go down, everything goes down, ha ha,
> hm, ha ha ha."
>
> "Roger Penrose Says Physics Is Wrong, From String Theory to Quantum
> Mechanics"
>
> "Former Harvard professor Shahriar Afshar said that failure to find
> the particle would bring current scientific theory tumbling down like
> a house of cards with nothing to replace it. The controversial
> physicist, whose Afshar experiment has already found a loophole in
> quantum theory, said that unless the scienitific community starts
> contemplating a "plan B", failure could lead to "chaos and
> infighting". He said failure will undermine more than a hundred years
> of scientific theory..."
>
> http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_5.html
> John Baez: "On the one hand we have the Standard Model, which tries to
> explain all the forces except gravity, and takes quantum mechanics
> into account. On the other hand we have General Relativity, which
> tries to explain gravity, and does not take quantum mechanics into
> account. Both theories seem to be more or less on the right track but
> until we somehow fit them together, or completely discard one or both,
> our picture of the world will be deeply schizophrenic.....I realized I
> didn't have enough confidence in either theory to engage in these
> heated debates. I also realized that there were other questions to
> work on: questions where I could actually tell when I was on the right
> track, questions where researchers cooperate more and fight less. So,
> I eventually decided to quit working on quantum gravity."
>
> "General relativity knits together space, time and gravity.
> Confounding all common sense, how time passes in Einstein's universe
> depends on what you are doing and where you are. Clocks run faster
> when the pull of gravity is weaker, so if you live up a skyscraper you
> age ever so slightly faster than you would if you lived on the ground
> floor, where Earth's gravitational tug is stronger. "General
> relativity completely changed our understanding of time," says Carlo
> Rovelli, a theoretical physicist at the University of the
> Mediterranean in Marseille, France.....It is still not clear who is
> right, says John Norton, a philosopher based at the University of
> Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Norton is hesitant to express it, but his
> instinct - and the consensus in physics - seems to be that space and
> time exist on their own. The trouble with this idea, though, is that
> it doesn't sit well with relativity, which describes space-time as a
> malleable fabric whose geometry can be changed by the gravity of
> stars, planets and matter."
>
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/passage/index.html
> John Norton: "A common belief among philosophers of physics is that
> the passage of time of ordinary experience is merely an illusion. The
> idea is seductive since it explains away the awkward fact that our
> best physical theories of space and time have yet to capture this
> passage. I urge that we should resist the idea. We know what illusions
> are like and how to detect them.
Philosophers can't accept the plain simple evidence
that time doesn't pass, evolution passes. Which is why the
people who understand it, discovered holographics rather than AI.
And developed laser disks, rather than digital.
And built atomic clock wristwatches, rather than satellites.
And built self-replicating machines, rather than gears.
And built fiber optics, rather than publishing houses.
And built HDTV, rather than Lisp.
And built cyber batteries, rather than yesterday,
> http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Contemporary-...
> include a global absolute simultaneity among their ...
>
> read more »
zzbu...@netscape.net
wrote:
But, that is mostly irrelevant to idiot Relativity,
since the only thing the idiots even know about geometry is black
holes,
the only thing they know about optics is glued in 1865
Maxwell Demon Rants. And the only thing the cranks even know
about
Calculus is Gauss Tought Experiments. And the only thing the
cranks
even know about electrons is Higg's Bosons.
And the only the idiots even know about 1865 is GE.
And the only the idiots even know about GE is GM.
> > Craig Callender: "In my opinion,- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -...
>
> read more »
Pentcho Valev
treated with the same indifference by the postscientific community:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/204892
"You might think there are no new revelations to be made about him,
but for Einstein groupies the current volume addresses at least one
key question: what did Einstein know about an 1887 experiment that
discovered that the speed of light is invariant, regardless of the
observer's speed or direction of motion—an idea that forms the core of
special relativity and that Einstein did not mention when he laid out
the theory of special relativity in a 1905 paper? Called the Michelson-
Morley experiment, it disproved the existence of the ether, a
substance once thought to carry light waves and form an absolute
reference frame for space. In their namesake experiment, Albert
Michelson (a physicist who won the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward
Morley (a chemist) showed that the speed of light is always the same
(now known to be 186,282 miles per second) relative to stationary
observers as well as moving ones. Nothing but light has this property:
if you are approaching a car that's moving 30 miles per hour, and
you're moving 30mph as well, the approaching car appears to be coming
at you at 60 mph. Not so with light. If you are traveling at the speed
of light, designated c, toward a light beam moving directly toward
you, it appears to be approaching at c, not 2c."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Inertial
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2a3b82b1-71f8-4612...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Catastrophe in physics:
There is no Catastrophe. You are lying as usual
> the following two texts coexist
Oh .. there are TWO text the COEXIST !!!. Why diddn't you say it was such a
terribly crisis .. two texts co-existing .. what a catastrophe that must for
physics .. which I am assuming you think prohibits the existence of more
than one text ??
> and are
> treated with the same indifference by the postscientific community:
Treated with whatever consideration they warrant
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/204892
> "You might think there are no new revelations to be made about him,
> but for Einstein groupies the current volume addresses at least one
> key question: what did Einstein know about an 1887 experiment that
> discovered that the speed of light is invariant, regardless of the
> observer's speed or direction of motion�an idea that forms the core of
> special relativity and that Einstein did not mention when he laid out
> the theory of special relativity in a 1905 paper? Called the Michelson-
> Morley experiment, it disproved the existence of the ether, a
> substance once thought to carry light waves and form an absolute
> reference frame for space. In their namesake experiment, Albert
> Michelson (a physicist who won the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward
> Morley (a chemist) showed that the speed of light is always the same
> (now known to be 186,282 miles per second) relative to stationary
> observers as well as moving ones. Nothing but light has this property:
> if you are approaching a car that's moving 30 miles per hour, and
> you're moving 30mph as well, the approaching car appears to be coming
> at you at 60 mph. Not so with light. If you are traveling at the speed
> of light, designated c, toward a light beam moving directly toward
> you, it appears to be approaching at c, not 2c."
That's fine. However, it is not what the MMX actually showed, but it is
consistent with it. Its not uncommon for magazine and news paper and
popular press to not get the physics details fully correct.
> http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
> John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
> WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
> POSTULATE."
There is no problem with that .. it doesn't say anything that we haven't
know for a century or so. The UPPER CASE doesn't make it any more
interested.
G. L. Bradford
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2a3b82b1-71f8-4612...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
treated with the same indifference by the postscientific community:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/204892
"You might think there are no new revelations to be made about him,
but for Einstein groupies the current volume addresses at least one
key question: what did Einstein know about an 1887 experiment that
discovered that the speed of light is invariant, regardless of the
observer's speed or direction of motion�an idea that forms the core of
special relativity and that Einstein did not mention when he laid out
the theory of special relativity in a 1905 paper? Called the Michelson-
Morley experiment, it disproved the existence of the ether, a
substance once thought to carry light waves and form an absolute
reference frame for space. In their namesake experiment, Albert
Michelson (a physicist who won the Nobel Prize in 1907) and Edward
Morley (a chemist) showed that the speed of light is always the same
(now known to be 186,282 miles per second) relative to stationary
observers as well as moving ones. Nothing but light has this property:
if you are approaching a car that's moving 30 miles per hour, and
you're moving 30mph as well, the approaching car appears to be coming
at you at 60 mph. Not so with light. If you are traveling at the speed
of light, designated c, toward a light beam moving directly toward
you, it appears to be approaching at c, not 2c."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
Pentcho Valev
============================
No traveler travels, or observes itself to travel, at the speed of light.
Not even at 10%, or even at 1%, the speed of light. The speeding traveler's
observed relativity to the speed of light (whatever the percentage) is
strictly independent observer dependent. That speeding traveler will always
observe and measure the speed of light locally in its own frame to be c. It
will have (it will be in) a coordinate space-time universe, one somewhat --
to fully -- offset from the observer's.
If the traveler approaches the observer at a relative velocity anything
like c, the observer will observe that traveler to be doing something like
.5c, not c. The observer will [observationally] position the traveler far
closer than the actual traveler will be to the observer, thus observing the
traveler to be coming on at a velocity far less than the actual velocity (a
fraction of the actual velocity). Can you understand why? Light will leave
the traveler at speed c -- as light would be measured on site by the
traveler, and arrive to the observer at speed c -- as light would be
measured on site by the observer. This positions the [observed] traveler
observably forward in space, though not fast forward in time, of the actual
traveler's position....thus the relative velocity to be observed for the
oncoming [virtual] traveler thus positioned by the messenger forward in
space of the actual traveler (doing something like an actual relative
velocity of c) at something like .5c.
And if the traveler were doing something like an actual relative velocity
(relative to the observer) of 2c, it would still not be observed by the
observer to be c or greater. The observed placement of the oncoming
[virtual] traveler would be even closer in space (though not at all closer
in time than the local photo-time of the propagation of the light) to the
observer for an observed velocity still below c.
This scenario, if followed to its logical conclusion, means that all
arrivals too (that is if there is an occurrance of an arrival) will also
always be at a relative velocity somewhere below c....no matter what the
actual relative velocity of travel once was. There is still the matter of
the so-called "speeding" (actually a constantly accelerating and/or
decelerating) traveler always being involved in physical contractions and/or
expansions of the surrounding nearer frames of universe.
In going away, the observed [virtual] traveler will always fall behind in
space and timeof the unobserved, and unobservable, real-time traveler. The
speed of c is too slow to keep up with the real traveler stretching out in
distance away from the observer....and away from itself as an observed
[virtual] traveler.
That observed [virtual] traveler, whether going away or oncoming, will
always be observed to [spacially] exist somewhere between the unobserved,
the unobservable, real-time traveler and the observer. Never (because of c)
to be observed by the observer somewhere back behind the oncoming
unobservable real-time traveler. And never (again because of c) to be
observed by the observer forward to the front of the unobservable real-time
traveler going away from the observer. In both cases the [apparent]
positioning of the observed virtual traveler will always be toward the
observer meaning an [apparently] slower relative velocity always being
observed for the traveler than the traveler is in fact doing. Close in, this
doesn't mean anything. The real-time traveler will be merged, or almost
merged, with its observed virtual self. Farther out, it begins to mean
something as the distance in the division between unobserved and observed
will be expanded.
GLB
===============================
Androcles
"G. L. Bradford" <glbr...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:VqWdnboddK0wsd7W...@insightbb.com...
>
> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:2a3b82b1-71f8-4612...@21g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> Catastrophe in physics: the following two texts coexist and are
> treated with the same indifference by the postscientific community:
>
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/204892
> "You might think there are no new revelations to be made about him,
> but for Einstein groupies the current volume addresses at least one
> key question: what did Einstein know about an 1887 experiment that
> discovered that the speed of light is invariant, regardless of the
Bullshit, that's only if he doesn't know how to use Doppler.