Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
John Norton : Theoretical Physicists Are Liars
6 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Aug 21, 2023, 4:10:59 PM8/21/23
to
John Norton, high priest in the Einstein Cult, exposes theoretical physicists ("later writers") as blatant liars. They use the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light postulate", knowing that this experiment is "fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate":
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
"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
Needless to say, John Norton is a liar himself. Einstein was not innocent - he was the author of the hoax. In 1921, already a deity, Einstein proclaimed that the Michelson-Morley experiment had proved constancy of the speed of light. Due to its divine origin, the blatant lie immediately became absolute truth and has been universally taught ever since:
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." https://ebay.com/itm/ALBERT-EINSTEIN-Lecture-on-SPEED-OF-LIGHT-Time-1st-Visit-to-US-1921-Newspaper/373400655156
Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
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
"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
Needless to say, John Norton is a liar himself. Einstein was not innocent - he was the author of the hoax. In 1921, already a deity, Einstein proclaimed that the Michelson-Morley experiment had proved constancy of the speed of light. Due to its divine origin, the blatant lie immediately became absolute truth and has been universally taught ever since:
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." https://ebay.com/itm/ALBERT-EINSTEIN-Lecture-on-SPEED-OF-LIGHT-Time-1st-Visit-to-US-1921-Newspaper/373400655156
Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
Aug 22, 2023, 6:57:46 AM8/22/23
to
So theoretical physicists "almost universally" teach that the Michelson-Morley experiment has disproved Newton's variable speed of light, and John Norton, high priest in the Einstein Cult, reveals that this is a blatant lie. Two questions:
1. Why is Norton doing this? Isn't it dangerous for the Einstein Cult?
2. Why has nobody come to the obvious conclusion: "Since in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, it was incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c, posited by the ether theory and "borrowed" by Einstein in 1905."
Answering both questions: Theoretical physics has been dead for a long time, so criticising it, like beating a dead horse, is pointless. No danger for the Einstein Cult. Norton just likes to startle brothers Einsteinians sometimes by telling the truth. Here is another example:
John Norton: "[Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
1. Why is Norton doing this? Isn't it dangerous for the Einstein Cult?
2. Why has nobody come to the obvious conclusion: "Since in 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, it was incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c, posited by the ether theory and "borrowed" by Einstein in 1905."
Answering both questions: Theoretical physics has been dead for a long time, so criticising it, like beating a dead horse, is pointless. No danger for the Einstein Cult. Norton just likes to startle brothers Einsteinians sometimes by telling the truth. Here is another example:
John Norton: "[Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Lou
Aug 25, 2023, 5:18:20 AM8/25/23
to
(Einsteins quote is taken from Norton cited above)
“All it takes is for there to be just one light source moving at or near c with respect to us for our space to be painted with frozen light. That is a firm prediction of the emission theory. Yet we have never experienced such a thing. An emission theory can only survive, then, if we make the dubious assumption that no fast moving, luminous bodies have passed through our corner of space—not even one. This is the first failure of an emission theory.”
How does Albert get to this silly conclusion? Oh I forgot.
He is a relativist. ( in other words: a closet etherist)
Because If light were frozen, as is possible under emission theory, we wouldn’t
see anything.
Seeing as light is only detectable when the magnetic field it is composed of
varies over time. Which it wouldn’t be doing since it is “frozen”
Unless of course we then moved relative to the frozen wave, at which point the
frozen light would be faintly detectable. Albeit so faint as to be virtually undetectable.
But if one had sensitive enough detectors then the ever so slowly changing
magnetic field of these now slightly unfrozen lightwaves would appear to be
very very very long wave radio waves.
Like for instance <0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 Hz.
And as far as I’m aware we don’t have the instruments to detect
such long wave radiation.
0 new messages