Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense

11 views
Skip to first unread message

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Sep 19, 2017, 2:54:45 AM9/19/17
to
Einstein's most obvious nonsense is undoubtedly his conclusion that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer, a direct consequence of his 1905 postulates. The observer starts moving towards the light source, the wavecrests start hitting him more frequently (the frequency he measures increases), and yet the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer idiotically remains the same:

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

Updated 2014 by Don Koks. Original by Steve Carlip (1997) and Philip Gibbs 1996: "To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer is very counterintuitive. Some people even refuse to accept this as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time." http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html

So Einstein "wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair", but in the end found it suitable to introduce the nonsense. However the nonsense naturally proved inconsistent with reality, and Einstein partially restored consistency by converting space and time, too, into nonsense:

Peter Galison: "Only by criticizing the foundational notions of time and space could one bring the pieces of the theory - that the laws of physics were the same in all constantly moving frames; that light traveled at the same speed regardless of its source - into harmony."
https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einsteins-time.htm

"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime." http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/

The most obvious nonsense (speed of light independent of motion of observer) is the first heavy blow on physics students's rationality:

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."
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm

Joe Wolfe and other brainwashers will continue to teach nonsense, loudly and repeatedly - in the end students will become indistinguishable from Bingo the Clowno:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX5ajyPr96M
Bingo the Clowno

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Sep 19, 2017, 11:25:16 AM9/19/17
to
The fact that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer is as obvious as 2+2=4 (Einstein's nonsensical conclusion that it doesn't is equivalent to Big Brother's 2+2=5):

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."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves toward a stationary source. When an observer moves toward a stationary source, the period of the wave emitted by a source is shorter and the observed frequency is higher. Because the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

All relevant experiments, if performed and interpreted correctly, confirm the variable speed of light posited by Newton's emission theory of light and refute the constant speed of light posited by Einstein's relativity. Even if the interpretation comes from the headquarters of Einstein cult, if it is correct, Einstein's relativity is (inadvertently) refuted:

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]

"Four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" means that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Sep 20, 2017, 3:18:53 AM9/20/17
to
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

Since c'=c ± v (the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter) was "explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887", then perhaps the antithesis, c' = c (the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter), was contradicting those results?

This is a question without an answer in Einstein's schizophrenic world. Too dangerous to even think of it:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity." http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev

unread,
Sep 21, 2017, 8:09:56 AM9/21/17
to
Neil deGrasse Tyson (30:08): "The speed of light: It's not just a good idea. It's the law!" Astrophysics for People in a Hurry - Neil deGrasse Tyson Bestseller Science Audiobook https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8UZhFf06Is&t=47s

That the speed of light is a law of physics is an imbecile idea but since Einstein himself advanced it ( http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html ), it is a law in Einstein's schizophrenic world indeed:

http://media.agonybooth.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/06053600/einstein-speed-limit.jpg

Only the silliest Einsteinians teach this particular idiocy (clever Einsteinians don't mention it):

Leonard Susskind (10:26) : "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with a certain velocity."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toGH5BdgRZ4

Lubos Motl: "The second postulate of special relativity morally follows from the first one once you promote the value of the speed of light to a law of physics which is what Einstein did. In classical Newtonian mechanics, it was not a law of physics." http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/lorentz-violation-and-deformed-special.html

Professor Raymond Flood (5:05): "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that the speed of light in a vacuum has the same value in two uniformly moving frames of reference." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjRSYv7u3T4

Dave Slaven: "Einstein's first postulate seems perfectly reasonable. And his second postulate follows very reasonably from his first. How strange that the consequences will seem so unreasonable."
http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/Physics/relativity/relativity3.html

Chad Orzel: "The core idea of Einstein's theory of relativity can fit on a bumper sticker: The Laws Of Physics Do Not Depend On How You're Moving. Absolutely everything else follows from the simple realization that physics must appear exactly the same to person in motion as to a person at rest - the constant speed of light, the slowing of time for moving observers, E=mc2, black holes, even the expanding universe (I've written a whole book about this, explained through imaginary conversations with my dog)."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/05/29/four-reasons-to-not-fear-physics/

Michael Fowler: "Therefore, demanding that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames implies that the speed of any light wave, measured in any inertial frame, must be 186,300 miles per second. This then is the entire content of the Theory of Special Relativity: the Laws of Physics are the same in any inertial frame, and, in particular, any measurement of the speed of light in any inertial frame will always give 186,300 miles per second." http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/lectures/spec_rel.html

Vesselin Petkov: "One of the fundamental facts of modern physics is the constancy of the speed of light. Einstein regarded it as one of the two postulates on which special relativity is based. So far, however, little attention has been paid to the status of this postulate when teaching special relativity. It turns out that the constancy of the speed of light is a direct consequence of the relativity principle, not an independent postulate. To see this let us consider the two postulates of special relativity as formulated by Einstein in his 1905 paper "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies": "the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good. We will raise this conjecture (the purport of which will hereafter be called the "Principle of Relativity") to the status of a postulate, and also introduce another postulate, which is only apparently irreconcilable with the former, namely, that light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of the motion of the emitting body". As the principle of relativity states that "the laws of physics are the same in all inertial reference frames" and the constancy of the speed of light means that "the speed of light is the same in all inertial reference frames (regardless of the motion of the source or the observer)" it follow that the second postulate is indeed a consequence of the first - the law describing the propagation of light is the same for all inertial observers." http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909081

Pentcho Valev
0 new messages