info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Einstein's Relativity: the Paradigm of Fraud in Science
71 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Aug 12, 2017, 10:21:26 AM8/12/17
to
It all started with the false constancy of the speed of light. Einstein plagiarized ("borrowed") it from the Lorentz equations, called it "postulate", and finally derived, for the gullible world, the Lorentz equations from the "postulate" (reverse engineering):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."
John Stachel explains that the constancy of the speed of light seemed nonsense to Einstein but he introduced it nevertheless:
http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
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."
Indeed, the idea that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer is nonsense. Consider the following setup:
A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source and measures the frequency again:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif
Premise 1 (Doppler effect; experimentally confirmed): The moving observer measures the frequency to be higher.
Premise 2 (obviously true): The formula
(frequency measured by the moving observer) = (speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer)/(distance between the pulses)
is correct.
Conclusion: The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is higher than relative to the stationary observer. In other words, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
The introduction of the false postulate was Einstein's original sin. The malignancy was there but it was sterile - all VALIDLY deducible consequences of the false postulate were obviously absurd and repugnant. Formally, this is still not fraud - postulates that may prove false are allowed by the deductive approach.
Einstein's second sin, however, was FRAUD - an invalid deduction produced a miraculous result that turned out to be irresistibly attractive. In 1905 Einstein derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."
The conclusion
"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"
does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates - the argument is INVALID. The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates:
Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.
Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation) in their combination give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B - in this sense the false postulate is sterile. In contrast, the INVALIDLY deduced conclusion provides a straightforward prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST (asymmetrical time dilation). The famous "travel into the future" is a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock means that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years are passing for the stationary system:
http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."
The year 1905 can be regarded as the year of the death of physics. Science died and idiotic ideology was born.
Peter Woit: "I think the worst thing that has happened to theoretical physics over the past 25 years is this descent into ideology, something that has accelerated with the multiverse mania of the last 10-15 years."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375
Correct, except for the number 25 - it should be replaced by 112:
"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. [...] The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
And when ideology replaces science, bureaucrats replace scientists of course:
Mike Alder: "It is easy to see the consequences of the takeover by the bureaucrats. Bureaucrats favour uniformity, it simplifies their lives. They want rules to follow. They prefer the dead to the living. They have taken over religions, the universities and now they are taking over Science. And they are killing it in the process. The forms and rituals remain, but the spirit is dead. The cold frozen corpse is so much more appealing to the bureaucratic mind-set than the living spirit of the quest for insight. Bureaucracies put a premium on the old being in charge, which puts a stop to innovation. Something perhaps will remain, but it will no longer attract the best minds. This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not. [...] Developing ideas and applying them is done by a certain kind of temperament in a certain kind of setting, one where there is a good deal of personal freedom and a willingness to take risks. No doubt we still have the people. But the setting is gone and will not come back. Science is a product of the renaissance and an entrepreneurial spirit. It will not survive the triumph of bureacracy. Despite having the infrastructure, China never developed Science. And soon the West won't have it either." https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-172684821.html
Pentcho Valev
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."
John Stachel explains that the constancy of the speed of light seemed nonsense to Einstein but he introduced it nevertheless:
http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
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."
Indeed, the idea that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer is nonsense. Consider the following setup:
A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source and measures the frequency again:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif
Premise 1 (Doppler effect; experimentally confirmed): The moving observer measures the frequency to be higher.
Premise 2 (obviously true): The formula
(frequency measured by the moving observer) = (speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer)/(distance between the pulses)
is correct.
Conclusion: The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is higher than relative to the stationary observer. In other words, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
The introduction of the false postulate was Einstein's original sin. The malignancy was there but it was sterile - all VALIDLY deducible consequences of the false postulate were obviously absurd and repugnant. Formally, this is still not fraud - postulates that may prove false are allowed by the deductive approach.
Einstein's second sin, however, was FRAUD - an invalid deduction produced a miraculous result that turned out to be irresistibly attractive. In 1905 Einstein derived, from his two postulates, the conclusion "the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B":
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B."
The conclusion
"the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B"
does not follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates - the argument is INVALID. The following two conclusions, in contrast, VALIDLY follow from the postulates:
Conclusion 1: The clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B, as judged from the stationary system.
Conclusion 2: The clock which has remained at B lags behind the clock moved from A to B, as judged from the moving system.
Conclusions 1 and 2 (symmetrical time dilation) in their combination give no prediction for the readings of the two clocks as they meet at B - in this sense the false postulate is sterile. In contrast, the INVALIDLY deduced conclusion provides a straightforward prediction - the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is FAST (asymmetrical time dilation). The famous "travel into the future" is a direct implication - the slowness of the moving clock means that its (moving) owner can remain virtually unchanged while sixty million years are passing for the stationary system:
http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf
Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can experience it "in a minute")."
The year 1905 can be regarded as the year of the death of physics. Science died and idiotic ideology was born.
Peter Woit: "I think the worst thing that has happened to theoretical physics over the past 25 years is this descent into ideology, something that has accelerated with the multiverse mania of the last 10-15 years."
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375
Correct, except for the number 25 - it should be replaced by 112:
"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. [...] The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909857880
And when ideology replaces science, bureaucrats replace scientists of course:
Mike Alder: "It is easy to see the consequences of the takeover by the bureaucrats. Bureaucrats favour uniformity, it simplifies their lives. They want rules to follow. They prefer the dead to the living. They have taken over religions, the universities and now they are taking over Science. And they are killing it in the process. The forms and rituals remain, but the spirit is dead. The cold frozen corpse is so much more appealing to the bureaucratic mind-set than the living spirit of the quest for insight. Bureaucracies put a premium on the old being in charge, which puts a stop to innovation. Something perhaps will remain, but it will no longer attract the best minds. This, essentially, is the Smolin position. He gives details and examples of the death of Physics, although he, being American, is optimistic that it can be reversed. I am not. [...] Developing ideas and applying them is done by a certain kind of temperament in a certain kind of setting, one where there is a good deal of personal freedom and a willingness to take risks. No doubt we still have the people. But the setting is gone and will not come back. Science is a product of the renaissance and an entrepreneurial spirit. It will not survive the triumph of bureacracy. Despite having the infrastructure, China never developed Science. And soon the West won't have it either." https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-172684821.html
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Aug 12, 2017, 11:07:49 AM8/12/17
to
On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 8:21:26 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> It all started with the false constancy of the speed of light.
Well, no. It all started when Pentcho was born.
>
> It all started with the false constancy of the speed of light.
> Einstein plagiarized ("borrowed") it from the Lorentz equations,
> called it "postulate", and finally derived, for the gullible world, the Lorentz equations from the "postulate" (reverse engineering):
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
> Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the
> velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the
> stationary luminiferous ether..."
> John Stachel explains that the constancy of the speed of light seemed
> nonsense to Einstein but he introduced it nevertheless:
extraordinary success.” -- Luc de Clapiers
> Indeed, the idea that the speed of light is independent of the speed of
> the observer is nonsense. Consider the following setup:
> The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source
at rest. Thus he sees the source moving towards himself.
> Premise 1 (Doppler effect; experimentally confirmed): The moving observer
> measures the frequency to be higher.
> Premise 2 (obviously true): The formula
>
> (frequency measured by the moving observer) = (speed of the pulses relative
> to the moving observer)/(distance between the pulses)
>
> is correct.
>
> Conclusion: The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is
> higher than relative to the stationary observer.
speed of light is not affected by the motion of its source, which is
experimentally confirmed.
> In other words,
Pentcho the Punk is a bona fide reality-denier and arrogant ignoramus.
The denial of the speed of light postulate was Prevaricating Pentcho's
original sin. The malignancy was there and was repugnant to all rational
beings. Hardly anyone knew of this cancerous blemish, but then along
came the internet and Putrid Pentcho's blight has metastasized.
Prevaricating Pentcho's second sin, however, was FRAUD - an invalid deduction
produced a never-ending vomiting of mental sickness.
Pentcho Valev
Aug 12, 2017, 11:48:36 AM8/12/17
to
The alpha fraudster was then joined by a beta fraudster, and the ideology started in 1905 became invincible:
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." 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.balajisebookworld.com/Ebooks/a.html
Discover Magazine: "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919. Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einstein's death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action." http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
Eddington was a solitary fraudster in 1919 but then he became a gang boss - in 1925 and 1928 the gang "confirmed" the so-called Einstein shift. As a result, fifty years later, general relativity's victory was complete and critics had virtually disappeared:
"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger – 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see." http://puritanreformed.blogspot.bg/2010/08/fallible-nature-of-supposed-objective.html
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. [...] ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... [...] In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... [...] ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. [...] More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud has an interesting hypothesis. According to him, initially all Einsteinians were fraudsters but the fraudulent period ended in 1971 when Eddington's second (Sirius B) major fraud was exposed. Then, in the 1970's, all Einsteinians became extremely honest, and remain so even nowadays:
"Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées. IL AURA FALLU ATTENDRE LES ANNÉES 1970 pour que de nouvelles méthodes parviennent enfin à fournir des preuves expérimentales solides de la relativité. [...] Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson, en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même, le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20 km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique, le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s, et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat, pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington, l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée." http://doczz.fr/doc/1099385/pdf--1.4-mo---cea-irfu
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." 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.balajisebookworld.com/Ebooks/a.html
Discover Magazine: "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919. Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einstein's death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action." http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
Eddington was a solitary fraudster in 1919 but then he became a gang boss - in 1925 and 1928 the gang "confirmed" the so-called Einstein shift. As a result, fifty years later, general relativity's victory was complete and critics had virtually disappeared:
"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger – 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see." http://puritanreformed.blogspot.bg/2010/08/fallible-nature-of-supposed-objective.html
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. [...] ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... [...] In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... [...] ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. [...] More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud has an interesting hypothesis. According to him, initially all Einsteinians were fraudsters but the fraudulent period ended in 1971 when Eddington's second (Sirius B) major fraud was exposed. Then, in the 1970's, all Einsteinians became extremely honest, and remain so even nowadays:
"Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées. IL AURA FALLU ATTENDRE LES ANNÉES 1970 pour que de nouvelles méthodes parviennent enfin à fournir des preuves expérimentales solides de la relativité. [...] Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson, en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même, le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20 km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique, le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s, et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat, pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington, l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée." http://doczz.fr/doc/1099385/pdf--1.4-mo---cea-irfu
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Aug 13, 2017, 1:51:50 AM8/13/17
to
In Einstein's schizophrenic world truth and lie coexist and there is no difference between them. Einsteinians traditionally teach the lie, but some teach the truth, just for a change. The scientific community couldn't care less. Here is an example:
Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw (the lie): "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein." Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), p. 91 https://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306818760
John Norton (the truth): "That [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
John Norton (the truth): "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
Another example:
Wikipedia (the lie): "The Pound–Rebka experiment is a well known experiment to test Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. It was proposed by Robert Pound and his graduate student Glen A. Rebka Jr. in 1959, and was the last of the classical tests of general relativity to be verified (in the same year). It is a gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
Albert Einstein Institute (the truth): "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Pentcho Valev
Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw (the lie): "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein." Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), p. 91 https://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306818760
John Norton (the truth): "That [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
John Norton (the truth): "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
Another example:
Wikipedia (the lie): "The Pound–Rebka experiment is a well known experiment to test Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. It was proposed by Robert Pound and his graduate student Glen A. Rebka Jr. in 1959, and was the last of the classical tests of general relativity to be verified (in the same year). It is a gravitational redshift experiment, which measures the redshift of light moving in a gravitational field, or, equivalently, a test of the general relativity prediction that clocks should run at different rates at different places in a gravitational field. It is considered to be the experiment that ushered in an era of precision tests of general relativity." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound%E2%80%93Rebka_experiment
Albert Einstein Institute (the truth): "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Pentcho Valev
Prudence Oppenheimer
Aug 13, 2017, 6:37:43 AM8/13/17
to
Gary Harnagel wrote:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
>> Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of
>> the
>> velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the
>> stationary luminiferous ether..."
>
> Ah, he was just being modest.
Since when borrowing became modest?? But not having enough with references
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
>> Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of
>> the
>> velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the
>> stationary luminiferous ether..."
>
> Ah, he was just being modest.
in his papers should make anybody pretty much suspicious. Like a moon
landing without evidences which has to be palpable.
Prudence Oppenheimer
Aug 13, 2017, 6:45:11 AM8/13/17
to
Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Sabine Hossenfelder: " As history has it, Eddington's original
all the empirical recorded data and blueprints are declared lost?? As
simple as that. Should we soon expect this kind of missing blueprints in
Relativity as bad as it is??
> Sabine Hossenfelder: " 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."
In which case the whole thing is just a parade, like a moon landing, which
> 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."
all the empirical recorded data and blueprints are declared lost?? As
simple as that. Should we soon expect this kind of missing blueprints in
Relativity as bad as it is??
Gary Harnagel
Aug 13, 2017, 8:06:48 AM8/13/17
to
On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 11:51:50 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> [His usual pony plop]
In Prevaricating Pentcho's schizophrenic world truth and lie coexist
>
> [His usual pony plop]
In Prevaricating Pentcho's schizophrenic world truth and lie coexist
Helmut Wabnig
Aug 13, 2017, 1:41:40 PM8/13/17
to
w.
JanPB
Aug 13, 2017, 8:58:43 PM8/13/17
to
On Saturday, August 12, 2017 at 7:21:26 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> It all started with the false constancy of the speed of light.
No, it started with Maxwell's equations.
> It all started with the false constancy of the speed of light.
> Einstein plagiarized ("borrowed") it from the Lorentz equations,
So obviously the presumed context of his 1905 paper PRESUMED Lorentz equations
as KNOWN.
What a complete JOKE you are.
> called it "postulate",
Actually, what he called "postulate" was something different and weaker: that the speed
of light in a fixed system in which Maxwell's equations hold good was independent of the
motion of the source.
> and finally derived, for the gullible world,
> the Lorentz equations from the "postulate" (reverse engineering):
in what you think is "physics".
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory
> Albert Einstein: "...I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..."
>
> John Stachel explains that the constancy of the speed of light seemed nonsense to Einstein but he introduced it nevertheless:
>
> http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
> 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."
>
> Indeed, the idea that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer is nonsense. Consider the following setup:
--
Jan
0 new messages