info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Kip Thorne: the Most Dishonest Einsteinian
3 views
Skip to first unread message
pentch...@gmail.com
Dec 28, 2021, 1:41:42 PM12/28/21
to
For unknown reasons, Einsteinians are only moderately dishonest when it comes to Eddington's 1919 experiment (there is some truth in their explanations):
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. Be that as it may, dozens of subsequent measurement proved his premature announcement correct. Einstein was right, Newton was wrong." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science." http://www.epubsbook.com/books/2203_7.html
New Scientist: "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
In contrast, Kip Thorne's dishonesty knows no limits. He teaches 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." http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings
Physicists, is it possible that Kip Thorne was lying about the gravitational waves?
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
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. Be that as it may, dozens of subsequent measurement proved his premature announcement correct. Einstein was right, Newton was wrong." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science." http://www.epubsbook.com/books/2203_7.html
New Scientist: "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
In contrast, Kip Thorne's dishonesty knows no limits. He teaches 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." http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings
Physicists, is it possible that Kip Thorne was lying about the gravitational waves?
See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
pentch...@gmail.com
Dec 28, 2021, 5:15:52 PM12/28/21
to
Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed" https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296
No, Kip Thorne, the motion of the observer CANNOT change the wavelength of the incoming light. So the observer does see the speed changed, in accordance with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength) and in violation of Einstein's relativity:
"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html
"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." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"Receiver moving towards the source: https://www.einstein-online.info/wp-content/uploads/SRT_Dopplereffekt_Pulse_4_%C2%A9_Daniela_Leitner_Markus_Poessel_Einstein-Online.gif There is a blue-shift...DISTANCES BETWEEN SUBSEQUENT PULSES ARE NOT AFFECTED, but still there is a frequency shift." https://einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/doppler/
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
No, Kip Thorne, the motion of the observer CANNOT change the wavelength of the incoming light. So the observer does see the speed changed, in accordance with the formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength) and in violation of Einstein's relativity:
"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html
"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." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"Receiver moving towards the source: https://www.einstein-online.info/wp-content/uploads/SRT_Dopplereffekt_Pulse_4_%C2%A9_Daniela_Leitner_Markus_Poessel_Einstein-Online.gif There is a blue-shift...DISTANCES BETWEEN SUBSEQUENT PULSES ARE NOT AFFECTED, but still there is a frequency shift." https://einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/doppler/
More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
0 new messages