info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Last Refuge of Cowards in Einstein's Schizophrenic World
54 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Dec 7, 2017, 2:53:35 AM12/7/17
to
David Spergel: "The way we have advanced in science is by falsifiability. By developing hypotheses, testing them (that's why we do experiments) and ruling things out. Ideas that are not testable, it's interesting metaphysics, perhaps interesting for philosophers. What has driven four hundred years of scientific progress is the fact that ideas can be wrong. And, the multiverse, I think is kind of the last refuge of cowards..." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9821
Who are the cowards? Einsteinians hiding from the fact that Einstein's relativity has been unequivocally falsified - by Doppler measurements, by the Michelson-Morley experiment, by the Pound-Rebka experiment. Let me start with the Doppler effect:
Einstein's 1905 assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source was false but sounded reasonable - an analogous statement is true for waves other than light. However, combined with the principle of relativity, the assumption entails an obvious idiocy - the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer as well:
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." https://history.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
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://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 (observer) is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Who are the cowards? Einsteinians hiding from the fact that Einstein's relativity has been unequivocally falsified - by Doppler measurements, by the Michelson-Morley experiment, by the Pound-Rebka experiment. Let me start with the Doppler effect:
Einstein's 1905 assumption that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the source was false but sounded reasonable - an analogous statement is true for waves other than light. However, combined with the principle of relativity, the assumption entails an obvious idiocy - the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer as well:
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." https://history.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
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://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 (observer) is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
Dec 7, 2017, 3:01:52 AM12/7/17
to
Pencho autoposting autobot Valev
Gary Harnagel
Dec 7, 2017, 7:44:51 AM12/7/17
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 12:53:35 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Who are the cowards? Einsteinians hiding from the fact that Einstein's
> relativity has been unequivocally falsified - by Doppler measurements,
Nope. Completely and asininely wrong.
>
> Who are the cowards? Einsteinians hiding from the fact that Einstein's
> relativity has been unequivocally falsified - by Doppler measurements,
> by the Michelson-Morley experiment,
Nope. Completely and asininely wrong.
> by the Pound-Rebka experiment.
Nope. Completely and asininely wrong.
> Let me start with the Doppler effect:
> Einstein's 1905 assumption that the speed of light is independent of the
> motion of the source was false
> but sounded reasonable
It sounds "reasonable" for a classical medium.
> - an analogous statement is true for waves other than light. However,
> combined with the principle of relativity, the assumption entails an
> obvious idiocy - the speed of light is independent of the motion of the
> observer as well:
Experiment demonstrates that Pooping Pentcho's predilections are fallacious.
Furthermore, the Principle of Relativity means that an inertial observer
can ALWAYS consider himself at rest, so "moving observer" is an oxymoron,
> The fact that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer
just means that he is a moronic ox.
> [Rest of message deleted because it glorifies oxymorons]
Pentcho Valev
Dec 7, 2017, 12:54:10 PM12/7/17
to
Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:
Albert Einstein, ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 1905: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
If interpreted correctly, the Doppler effect directly refutes the postulated independence from "the state of motion of the emitting body". Here are incorrect interpretations - Einstein's relativity is saved by the false ad hoc assumption that the wavelength or the distance between subsequent pulses is changed by the moving light source:
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf
Albert Einstein Institute: "We will start with a very simple set-up, which you can see in the following animation. On the right-hand side, drawn in green, there is a sender that emits pulses in regular succession. On the left-hand side there is a receiver, drawn in blue. The pulses themselves are drawn in red, and they all travel at the same speed from right to left. Everytime the sender emits a new pulse, a yellow indicator light flashes once. Likewise, a flashing light indicates when a pulse has reached the receiver:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
Next, let us look at a slightly different situation, where the source is moving towards the detector. We assume that the motion of the sender does not influence the speed at which the pulses travel, and that the pulses are sent with the same frequency as before. Still, as we can see in the following animation, the motion influences the pulse pattern:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_source_blue.gif
The distance between successive pulses is now smaller than when both sender and receiver were at rest. Consequently, the pulses arrive at the receiver in quicker succession. If we compare the rates at which the indicator lights at the receiver and at the sender are flashing, we find that the indicator light at the receiver is flashing faster." [END OF QUOTATION] http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Einsteinians make the following assumption above, which is essentially identical to Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:
Assumption 1: "The motion of the sender does not influence the speed at which the pulses travel."
Assumption 1 goes hand in hand with another assumption:
Assumption 2: "The distance between successive pulses is now smaller than when both sender and receiver were at rest."
Assumption 2 is false - the pulses do not bunch up when the source (sender) is moving. If they did, by measuring the (variable) distance between the pulses, an observer in the frame of the source would know whether he is moving or at rest, which contradicts the principle of relativity.
Since Assumption 2 is false, Assumption 1 is false as well. If the speed of the moving source is v, the speed of the light relative to the receiver is c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Albert Einstein, ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES, 1905: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
If interpreted correctly, the Doppler effect directly refutes the postulated independence from "the state of motion of the emitting body". Here are incorrect interpretations - Einstein's relativity is saved by the false ad hoc assumption that the wavelength or the distance between subsequent pulses is changed by the moving light source:
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary." http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf
Albert Einstein Institute: "We will start with a very simple set-up, which you can see in the following animation. On the right-hand side, drawn in green, there is a sender that emits pulses in regular succession. On the left-hand side there is a receiver, drawn in blue. The pulses themselves are drawn in red, and they all travel at the same speed from right to left. Everytime the sender emits a new pulse, a yellow indicator light flashes once. Likewise, a flashing light indicates when a pulse has reached the receiver:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
Next, let us look at a slightly different situation, where the source is moving towards the detector. We assume that the motion of the sender does not influence the speed at which the pulses travel, and that the pulses are sent with the same frequency as before. Still, as we can see in the following animation, the motion influences the pulse pattern:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_source_blue.gif
The distance between successive pulses is now smaller than when both sender and receiver were at rest. Consequently, the pulses arrive at the receiver in quicker succession. If we compare the rates at which the indicator lights at the receiver and at the sender are flashing, we find that the indicator light at the receiver is flashing faster." [END OF QUOTATION] http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Einsteinians make the following assumption above, which is essentially identical to Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:
Assumption 1: "The motion of the sender does not influence the speed at which the pulses travel."
Assumption 1 goes hand in hand with another assumption:
Assumption 2: "The distance between successive pulses is now smaller than when both sender and receiver were at rest."
Assumption 2 is false - the pulses do not bunch up when the source (sender) is moving. If they did, by measuring the (variable) distance between the pulses, an observer in the frame of the source would know whether he is moving or at rest, which contradicts the principle of relativity.
Since Assumption 2 is false, Assumption 1 is false as well. If the speed of the moving source is v, the speed of the light relative to the receiver is c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Dec 7, 2017, 1:27:15 PM12/7/17
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 10:54:10 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:
>
> Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate:
Nope. Completely and asininely wrong.
> If interpreted correctly, the Doppler effect directly refutes the postulated
> independence from "the state of motion of the emitting body".
> independence from "the state of motion of the emitting body".
Nope. Completely and asininely wrong.
> Here are incorrect interpretations - Einstein's relativity is saved by the
> false ad hoc assumption that the wavelength or the distance between
> subsequent pulses is changed by the moving light source:
> false ad hoc assumption that the wavelength or the distance between
> subsequent pulses is changed by the moving light source:
Nope. Completely and asininely wrong.
> [Completely and asininely wrong insinuations]
> Next, let us look at a slightly different situation, where the source is
> moving towards the detector. We assume that the motion of the sender does
> not influence the speed at which the pulses travel, and that the pulses
> are sent with the same frequency as before. Still, as we can see in the
> following animation, the motion influences the pulse pattern:
>
> http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_source_blue.gif
>
> The distance between successive pulses is now smaller than when both sender
> and receiver were at rest. Consequently, the pulses arrive at the receiver
> in quicker succession. If we compare the rates at which the indicator lights
> at the receiver and at the sender are flashing, we find that the indicator
> light at the receiver is flashing faster." [END OF QUOTATION]
>
> http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
>
> Einsteinians make the following assumption above, which is essentially identical to Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate:
>
> Assumption 1: "The motion of the sender does not influence the speed at
> which the pulses travel."
>
> Assumption 1 goes hand in hand with another assumption:
>
> Assumption 2: "The distance between successive pulses is now smaller than
> when both sender and receiver were at rest."
>
> Assumption 2 is false - the pulses do not bunch up when the source (sender)
> is moving. If they did, by measuring the (variable) distance between the
> pulses, an observer in the frame of the source would know whether he is
> moving or at rest, which contradicts the principle of relativity.
same speed as the source doesn't see any bunching up, you lying piece
of fecal material.
> Since Assumption 2 is false,
prove either "assumption" false. In fact, they are correct by experiment.
> Assumption 1 is false as well. If the speed of the moving source is v,
> the speed of the light relative to the receiver is c'=c+v, in violation
> of Einstein's relativity.
>
> Pentcho Valev
Lara Ashline
Dec 7, 2017, 1:34:10 PM12/7/17
to
Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> Assumption 2 is false - the pulses do not bunch up when the source
>> (sender)
>> is moving. If they did, by measuring the (variable) distance between
>> the pulses, an observer in the frame of the source would know whether
>> he is moving or at rest, which contradicts the principle of relativity.
>
> What a crackpot collection of bull plop! An observer traveling at the
> same speed as the source doesn't see any bunching up, you lying piece of
> fecal material.
Hoe about a nice tone, like a nice old lady, my old friend I love you so
>> Assumption 2 is false - the pulses do not bunch up when the source
>> (sender)
>> is moving. If they did, by measuring the (variable) distance between
>> the pulses, an observer in the frame of the source would know whether
>> he is moving or at rest, which contradicts the principle of relativity.
>
> What a crackpot collection of bull plop! An observer traveling at the
> same speed as the source doesn't see any bunching up, you lying piece of
> fecal material.
much.
mlwo...@wp.pl
Dec 7, 2017, 2:24:06 PM12/7/17
to
On Thursday, 7 December 2017 19:27:15 UTC+1, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> What a crackpot collection of bull plop! An observer traveling at the
> same speed as the source doesn't see any bunching up, you lying piece
> of fecal material.
And an observer walking a street observes trees and
> What a crackpot collection of bull plop! An observer traveling at the
> same speed as the source doesn't see any bunching up, you lying piece
> of fecal material.
buildings running around. A wise guru has said! It
must be true.
JanPB
Dec 7, 2017, 4:02:15 PM12/7/17
to
On Wednesday, December 6, 2017 at 11:53:35 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> David Spergel: "The way we have advanced in science is by falsifiability. By developing hypotheses, testing them (that's why we do experiments) and ruling things out. Ideas that are not testable, it's interesting metaphysics, perhaps interesting for philosophers. What has driven four hundred years of scientific progress is the fact that ideas can be wrong. And, the multiverse, I think is kind of the last refuge of cowards..." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9821
Old news. I have at least one 30-year old quantum mechanics textbook that
> David Spergel: "The way we have advanced in science is by falsifiability. By developing hypotheses, testing them (that's why we do experiments) and ruling things out. Ideas that are not testable, it's interesting metaphysics, perhaps interesting for philosophers. What has driven four hundred years of scientific progress is the fact that ideas can be wrong. And, the multiverse, I think is kind of the last refuge of cowards..." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9821
says that.
> Who are the cowards?
Yes, like you would have a clue.
> Einsteinians
There is no such thing as "Einsteinians".
> hiding from the fact that Einstein's relativity has been unequivocally falsified -
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html
https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2014-4
> by Doppler measurements,
False. You simply don't understand Doppler.
> by the Michelson-Morley experiment,
False.
> by the Pound-Rebka experiment.
False.
> Let me start with the Doppler effect:
times. There is no point repeating it to you any more than to teach a pig
to dance.
--
Jan
Pentcho Valev
Dec 7, 2017, 5:35:31 PM12/7/17
to
In 1887 Michelson and Morley had calculations showing that the two beams should arrive at different times, but the experiment demonstrated no time difference at all - the two beams arrived at the same time.
The calculations were based on a false assumption - Michelson and Morley had assumed that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter. So the first thing the Michelson-Morley experiment refuted was this assumption. If Michelson and Morley had assumed that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter, as predicted by Newton's emission theory, the experimental result would have matched the calculations:
"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 the refuted assumption, "the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter", became one of Einstein's postulates in 1905, it is fair to say that Einstein's relativity was experimentally refuted before it was created.
The following revelations are staggering:
John Norton: "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
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point needs emphasis. 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
So we have an experiment that has disproved the constancy of the speed of light but the brainwashed world is certain that the experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light. Who is to blame? According to Stachel and Norton, Einstein is innocent in this case - he was honest and taught that the Michelson-Morley experiment had confirmed the principle of relativity, not the constancy of the speed of light. Today's Einsteinians ("later writers") however are liars and teach that the experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light.
Stachel and Norton are right about today's Einsteinians (they are pathological liars) but did Einstein really teach the truth? Of course not. He was the author of the hoax:
The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
Pentcho Valev
The calculations were based on a false assumption - Michelson and Morley had assumed that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter. So the first thing the Michelson-Morley experiment refuted was this assumption. If Michelson and Morley had assumed that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter, as predicted by Newton's emission theory, the experimental result would have matched the calculations:
"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 the refuted assumption, "the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter", became one of Einstein's postulates in 1905, it is fair to say that Einstein's relativity was experimentally refuted before it was created.
The following revelations are staggering:
John Norton: "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
John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point needs emphasis. 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
So we have an experiment that has disproved the constancy of the speed of light but the brainwashed world is certain that the experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light. Who is to blame? According to Stachel and Norton, Einstein is innocent in this case - he was honest and taught that the Michelson-Morley experiment had confirmed the principle of relativity, not the constancy of the speed of light. Today's Einsteinians ("later writers") however are liars and teach that the experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light.
Stachel and Norton are right about today's Einsteinians (they are pathological liars) but did Einstein really teach the truth? Of course not. He was the author of the hoax:
The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
Pentcho Valev
JanPB
Dec 7, 2017, 5:38:19 PM12/7/17
to
On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 2:35:31 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> In 1887 Michelson and Morley had calculations showing that the two beams should arrive at different times, but the experiment demonstrated no time difference at all - the two beams arrived at the same time.
>
> The calculations were based on a false assumption - Michelson and Morley had assumed that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter.
Not even wrong.
> In 1887 Michelson and Morley had calculations showing that the two beams should arrive at different times, but the experiment demonstrated no time difference at all - the two beams arrived at the same time.
>
> The calculations were based on a false assumption - Michelson and Morley had assumed that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter.
--
Jan
Koobee Wublee
Dec 8, 2017, 1:46:48 PM12/8/17
to
On December 7, 2017, JanPB the queen of England wrote:
> > Who are the cowards?
>
> Yes, like you would have a clue.
Jan Bielawki the queen of England certainly has no clue. <shrug>
> > Einsteinians
>
> There is no such thing as "Einsteinians".
Would you prefer Einstein dingleberries or relativistic morons? <shrug>
> > hiding from the fact that Einstein's relativity has been
> > unequivocally falsified -
>
> No, this is fake news.
Put it this way. All the experiments that have verified SR have also verified SR’s antitheses which all of them say the absolute frame of reference must exist. There has never been an experiment to verify the field equation with non-zero energy momentum tensor. <shrug>
> Nobody cares,
The queen of England certainly does not. <shrug>
> On December 6, 2017 at 11:53:35 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9821
>
> Old news. I have at least one 30-year old quantum mechanics textbook that
> says that.
Not even wrong. <shrug>
> > http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9821
>
> Old news. I have at least one 30-year old quantum mechanics textbook that
> says that.
> > Who are the cowards?
>
> Yes, like you would have a clue.
> > Einsteinians
>
> There is no such thing as "Einsteinians".
> > hiding from the fact that Einstein's relativity has been
> > unequivocally falsified -
>
> No, this is fake news.
> Nobody cares,
The queen of England certainly does not. <shrug>
Lara Kehl
Dec 28, 2017, 7:42:52 PM12/28/17
to
0 new messages