ALL MOTION IS RELATIVE, EINSTEINIANS!

[Pentcho Valev]

http://worldnpa.org/abstracts/abstracts_215.pdf
Herbert Dingle: "Either there is an absolute standard of rest - call it the ether as with Maxwell, or the universe as with Mach, or absolute space as with Newton, or what you will or else all motion, including that with the speed of light, is relative, as with Ritz."

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/crit/1908l.htm
Walther Ritz (1908): "The only conclusion which, from then on, seems possible to me, is that ether doesn't exist, or more exactly, that we should renounce use of this representation, that the motion of light is a relative motion like all the others, that only relative velocities play a role in the laws of nature."

In 1954 Einstein almost admitted that he had killed physics by basing his theory on the field concept:

http://books.simonandschuster.com/Evolution-of-Physics/Albert-Einstein/9780671201562
Albert Einstein (1938): "The theory of relativity stresses the importance of the field concept in physics. But we have not yet succeeded in formulating a pure field physics. For the present we must still assume the existence of both: field and matter."

http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
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."

How did Einstein base his theory on the field concept? By adopting the false tenet of the ether field theory according to which the speed of light relative to the observer is independent of the speed of the light source (this, combined with the principle of relativity, made the motion with the speed of light absolute, not relative):

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0101/0101109.pdf
"The two first articles (January and March) establish clearly a discontinuous structure of matter and light. The standard look of Einstein's SR is, on the contrary, essentially based on the continuous conception of the field."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

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:

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary receiver)

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving receiver)

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]

That is, the speed of the pulses relative to the stationary receiver is c = 3d/t, but relative to the moving receiver is c' = 4d/t = (4/3)c, where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses".

Clearly the speed of light (relative to the receiver) varies with the speed of the receiver, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Let us formulate the problem in more precise terms. Consider a light source emitting a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d = 300000 km). The frequency of the pulses at a stationary receiver is f = c/d:

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

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

http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif

Question: Why does the frequency shift from f = c/d to f' = (c+v)/d ?

Answer 1 (fatal for Einstein's relativity): Because the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver shifts from c to c' = c+v.

Answer 2 (saving Einstein's relativity): Because the motion of the receiver somehow changes the distance between the pulses - this distance should shift from d to d' = cd/(c+v) (otherwise goodbye Einstein!).

Answer 1 is reasonable (it is relevant for all types of wave), Answer 2 is obviously absurd. So the attempt to save Einstein's relativity amounts to reductio ad absurdum, which means that the underlying premise - Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate - is false. Walther Ritz was right:

http://ritz-btr.narod.ru/martinez2004pip6.pdf
Alberto Martinez: "In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences... (...) Two months after Ritz's death, in September 1909, his exchange with Einstein barely echoed at a meeting of the Deutsche Naturforscher und Ärtze in Salzburg, where Einstein delivered a lecture elaborating his views on the radiation problem but made no explicit reference to Ritz's views. Two years later, however, in November 1911, Paul Ehrenfest wrote a paper comparing Einstein's views on light propagation with those of Ritz. Ehrenfest noted that although both approaches involved a particulate description of light, Ritz's theory constituted a "real" emission theory (in the Newtonian sense), while Einstein's was more akin to the ether conception since it postulated that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of its source. (...) Ritz's emission theory garnered hardly any supporters, at least none who would develop it or express support for it in print. As noted above, in 1911, two years after Ritz's death, Ehrenfest wrote a paper contrasting Ritz's and Einstein's theories, to which Einstein responded in several letters, trying in vain to convince him that the emission hypothesis should be rejected. Then Ehrenfest became Lorentz's successor at Leiden, and in his inaugural lecture in December 1912, he argued dramatically for the need to decide between Lorentz's and Einstein's theories, on the one hand, and Ritz's on the other. After 1913, however, Ehrenfest no longer advocated Ritz's theory. Ehrenfest and Ritz had been close friends since their student days, Ehrenfest having admired Ritz immensely as his superior in physics and mathematics; but following Ritz's death, Einstein came to play that role, as he and Ehrenfest became close friends."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

A natural process of disintegration of the Einsteinian soul:

http://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Crisis-Physics-Universe/dp/0547511728
Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe, Lee Smolin, p. 163: "To describe how the correlations are established, a hidden-variables theory must embrace one observer's definition of simultaneity. This means, in turn, that there is a preferred notion of rest. And that, in turn, implies that motion is absolute. Motion is absolutely meaningful, because you can talk absolutely about who is moving with respect to that one observer - call him Aristotle. Aristotle is at rest. Anything he sees as moving is really moving. End of story. In other words, Einstein was wrong. Newton was wrong. Galileo was wrong. There is no relativity of motion."

Only a couple of years earlier Smolin was much saner and even on the right track:

http://www.fqxi.org/community/articles/display/148
"Many physicists argue that time is an illusion. Lee Smolin begs to differ. (...) Smolin wishes to hold on to the reality of time. But to do so, he must overcome a major hurdle: General and special relativity seem to imply the opposite. In the classical Newtonian view, physics operated according to the ticking of an invisible universal clock. But Einstein threw out that master clock when, in his theory of special relativity, he argued that no two events are truly simultaneous unless they are causally related. If simultaneity - the notion of "now" - is relative, the universal clock must be a fiction, and time itself a proxy for the movement and change of objects in the universe. Time is literally written out of the equation. Although he has spent much of his career exploring the facets of a "timeless" universe, Smolin has become convinced that this is "deeply wrong," he says. He now believes that time is more than just a useful approximation, that it is as real as our guts tell us it is - more real, in fact, than space itself. The notion of a "real and global time" is the starting hypothesis for Smolin's new work, which he will undertake this year with two graduate students supported by a $47,500 grant from FQXi."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

The silliest lie in Einstein's schizophrenic world: Einstein's 1905 second (constant-speed-of-light) postulate follows from the first (the principle of relativity):

http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/lorentz-violation-and-deformed-special.html
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."

http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/Physics/relativity/relativity3.html
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://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/spec_rel.html
Michael Fowler: "We now come to Einstein's major insight: the Theory of Special Relativity. It is deceptively simple. Einstein first dusted off Galileo's discussion of experiments below decks on a uniformly moving ship, and restated it as: The Laws of Physics are the same in all Inertial Frames. Einstein then simply brought this up to date, by pointing out that the Laws of Physics must now include Maxwell's equations describing electric and magnetic fields as well as Newton's laws describing motion of masses under gravity and other forces. (...) Demanding that Maxwell's equations be satisfied in all inertial frames has one major consequence as far as we are concerned. As we stated above, Maxwell's equations give the speed of light to be 3×10^8 meters per second. 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 3×10^8 meters 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 3×10^8 meters per second."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/07/09/the-one-thing-everybody-should-know-about-relativity/
Chad Orzel: "...all of relativity flows from a single, simple idea that could easily fit on a bumper sticker: "The Laws Of Physics Do Not Depend On How You're Moving." Once you have that, all the weird stuff you may have heard about - clocks running slow, E = mc^2, the bending of light by gravity - follows as a direct logical consequence of that principle. (...) The famous Michelson-Morley experiment attempted to measure a change in the speed of light depending on the Earth's motion around the Sun, but failed to find any change. Einstein's relativity explains this through the principle of relativity: the laws of physics do not depend on how you're moving, and the laws of physics include Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. Which means that the speed of light must be exactly the same, no matter how you're moving."

Which equally means that the greenness of the crocodile exceeds its length, Chad Orzel.

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://www.martinezwritings.com/m/Relativity.html
Alberto Martinez: "Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the speed of light depends on its source, just like all material projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913 most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is independent of its source had been found to be defective."

Two examples of defective (more precisely, fraudulent) but glorious confirmation of Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment
"The de Sitter effect was described by de Sitter in 1913 and used to support the special theory of relativity against a competing 1908 emission theory by Walter Ritz that postulated a variable speed of light. De Sitter showed that Ritz's theory predicted that the orbits of binary stars would appear more eccentric than consistent with experiment and with the laws of mechanics, however, the experimental result was negative. This was confirmed by Brecher in 1977 by observing the x-rays spectrum."

Here is Brecher's paper:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Brecher-K-1977.pdf
K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?"

Brecher (originally de Sitter) applies the emission theory to a system with unknown parameters and informs the gullible world that, if the emission theory was correct, the system would produce "peculiar effects". For instance, Brecher has no idea how the gravitational field of the system affects the speed of the emitted light, and accordingly calculates the "peculiar effects" by omitting this parameter.

Needless to say, the system does not produce the strawman "peculiar effects". Conclusion: Ritz's emission theory (more precisely, the assumption that the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter) is unequivocally refuted, Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.

A refutation of this kind can only be "valid" in Einstein's schizophrenic world. Note that it cannot be criticized - the fact that the parameters of the double star system are unknown prevents critics from showing why exactly the "peculiar effects" are absent.

De Sitter's arguments "have been criticized" but the Alväger experiment "is unambiguous", Divine Einstein, yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity:

http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html
Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "There is another obvious possibility, which is called the emitter theory: the light travels at 186,300 miles per second relative to the source of the light. The analogy here is between light emitted by a source and bullets emitted by a machine gun. The bullets come out at a definite speed (called the muzzle velocity) relative to the barrel of the gun. If the gun is mounted on the front of a tank, which is moving forward, and the gun is pointing forward, then relative to the ground the bullets are moving faster than they would if shot from a tank at rest. The simplest way to test the emitter theory of light, then, is to measure the speed of light emitted in the forward direction by a flashlight moving in the forward direction, and see if it exceeds the known speed of light by an amount equal to the speed of the flashlight. Actually, this kind of direct test of the emitter theory only became experimentally feasible in the nineteen-sixties. It is now possible to produce particles, called neutral pions, which decay each one in a little explosion, emitting a flash of light. It is also possible to have these pions moving forward at 185,000 miles per second when they self destruct, and to catch the light emitted in the forward direction, and clock its speed. It is found that, despite the expected boost from being emitted by a very fast source, the light from the little explosions is going forward at the usual speed of 186,300 miles per second. In the last century, the emitter theory was rejected because it was thought the appearance of certain astronomical phenomena, such as double stars, where two stars rotate around each other, would be affected. Those arguments have since been criticized, but the pion test is unambiguous. The definitive experiment was carried out by Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964)."

Here is Alväger's paper:

https://www.uam.es/personal_pdi/ciencias/jcuevas/Teaching/Alvaeger-PL1964.pdf
Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region, Alväger, T.; Farley, F. J. M.; Kjellman, J.; Wallin, L., 1964, Physics Letters, vol. 12, Issue 3, pp.260-262

High energy particles bump into a beryllium target and as a result gamma photons leave the target and travel at c relative to the target. Antirelativists do not see how this can refute the emission theory but Einsteinians do. They teach that initially a pion is generated inside the beryllium target, and this pion travels at 0.9999c inside the target, and decays into two gamma photons inside the target, and therefore this pion is a moving source of light. And since the source travels at c inside the target, the gamma photons must travel at 2c if the emission theory is correct but they don't - they travel at c as gloriously predicted by Divine Albert's Divine Theory!

Just imagine: An object travels at some speed, then disintegrates into two fragments, and the emission theory, according to Einsteinians, predicts that the fragments should travel at twice the initial speed! What an idiotic straw man!

If the emission theory had predicted that the products of the disintegration of the pion should travel at 2c, it would be the silliest theory in the history of science. The straw man built by Alväger & Co is more than idiotic, and yet the experiment is often cited as the most convincing confirmation of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.

Pentcho Valev