Kip Thorne about the Speed of Light

Skip to first unread message

Jul 21, 2022, 7:39:31 PMJul 21
Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed."

A blatant lie. The obvious truth: The observer's motion cannot affect the wavelength so you see the speed and the frequency increase proportionally, in accordance with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength):

"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer."

"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."

See more here:

Pentcho Valev

Jul 22, 2022, 5:34:09 PMJul 22
Kip Thorne, who got the Nobel Prize for discovering nonexistent gravitational waves, informs the world that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of starlight (one of the most blatant lies in the history of science):

Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity."

Sabine Hossenfelder is much less dishonest than Kip Thorne (so she will never get the Nobel Prize):

Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's. [...] As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him."

More here:

Pentcho Valev
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages