info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
WHERE THE INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS HAS GOT IT WRONG
56 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Feb 4, 2015, 11:52:49 AM2/4/15
to
http://www.iop.org/resources/topic/page_64963.html
Institute of Physics (IOP): "Physicists have backtracked after apparent confirmation of cosmic inflation turned out to be just dust. We look at some other occasions when science has got it wrong (...) Maxwell later suggested that the motion of the Earth through the aether could be worked out by measuring changes in the speed of light received from a distance source when the Earth is moving toward it at one time of year compared to when the Earth is moving away from it at another time of year. Several experiments along these lines were carried out, the most famous of which was run by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley - and they failed to detect any difference in the speed of light. Their result was one of the motivations for Albert Einstein to develop the special theory of relativity, in which the speed of light is constant and time and length are relative and depend on motion."
Einstein (and everybody else at that time) knew perfectly well that, prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis, the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light predicted by the immobile ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
http://www.semikov.lic40.net/martinez2004pip6.pdf
Alberto Martinez: "In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences...."
http://www.sofrphilo.fr/telecharger.php?id=69
Séance du 19 Octobre 1911, LE TEMPS, L'ESPACE ET LA CAUSALITÉ DANS LA PHYSIQUE MODERNE, Jean Perrin: "Il est remarquable qu'un retour à l'hypothèse de l'émission, en admettant que les particules lumineuses sont émises par chaque source avec une même vitesse par rapport à elle dans toutes les directions expliquerait, dans les conceptions de la Mécanique classique, le résultat négatif de l'expérience de Michelson et Morley quel que soit le mouvement d'ensemble du système. D'autre part les physiciens, en développant la théorie des ondulations au point de vue du principe de relativité, sont amenés à conclure que la lumière est inerte et probablement pesante. N'est-ce pas un retour vers l'ancienne théorie de l'émission ?"
http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/SS07/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.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://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
Pentcho Valev
Institute of Physics (IOP): "Physicists have backtracked after apparent confirmation of cosmic inflation turned out to be just dust. We look at some other occasions when science has got it wrong (...) Maxwell later suggested that the motion of the Earth through the aether could be worked out by measuring changes in the speed of light received from a distance source when the Earth is moving toward it at one time of year compared to when the Earth is moving away from it at another time of year. Several experiments along these lines were carried out, the most famous of which was run by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley - and they failed to detect any difference in the speed of light. Their result was one of the motivations for Albert Einstein to develop the special theory of relativity, in which the speed of light is constant and time and length are relative and depend on motion."
Einstein (and everybody else at that time) knew perfectly well that, prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis, the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light predicted by the immobile ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
http://www.semikov.lic40.net/martinez2004pip6.pdf
Alberto Martinez: "In sum, Einstein rejected the emission hypothesis prior to 1905 not because of any direct empirical evidence against it, but because it seemed to involve too many theoretical and mathematical complications. By contrast, Ritz was impressed by the lack of empirical evidence against the emission hypothesis, and he was not deterred by the mathematical difficulties it involved. It seemed to Ritz far more reasonable to assume, in the interest of the "economy" of scientific concepts, that the speed of light depends on the speed of its source, like any other projectile, rather than to assume or believe, with Einstein, that its speed is independent of the motion of its source even though it is not a wave in a medium; that nothing can go faster than light; that the length and mass of any body varies with its velocity; that there exist no rigid bodies; that duration and simultaneity are relative concepts; that the basic parallelogram law for the addition of velocities is not exactly valid; and so forth. Ritz commented that "it is a curious thing, worthy of remark, that only a few years ago one would have thought it sufficient to refute a theory to show that it entails even one or another of these consequences...."
http://www.sofrphilo.fr/telecharger.php?id=69
Séance du 19 Octobre 1911, LE TEMPS, L'ESPACE ET LA CAUSALITÉ DANS LA PHYSIQUE MODERNE, Jean Perrin: "Il est remarquable qu'un retour à l'hypothèse de l'émission, en admettant que les particules lumineuses sont émises par chaque source avec une même vitesse par rapport à elle dans toutes les directions expliquerait, dans les conceptions de la Mécanique classique, le résultat négatif de l'expérience de Michelson et Morley quel que soit le mouvement d'ensemble du système. D'autre part les physiciens, en développant la théorie des ondulations au point de vue du principe de relativité, sont amenés à conclure que la lumière est inerte et probablement pesante. N'est-ce pas un retour vers l'ancienne théorie de l'émission ?"
http://www.philoscience.unibe.ch/documents/kursarchiv/SS07/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation, has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late 19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised the greatest theoretician of the day."
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.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://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Relativity and Its Roots, Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Feb 4, 2015, 12:37:38 PM2/4/15
to
On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 9:52:49 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Einstein (and everybody else at that time) knew perfectly well that, prior to
> FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis,
> the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of
> light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant
> (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light predicted by the
> immobile ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special
> relativity's second postulate:
>
> Pentcho Valev
>
> Einstein (and everybody else at that time) knew perfectly well that, prior to
> FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis,
> the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of
> light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant
> (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light predicted by the
> immobile ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special
> relativity's second postulate:
>
Hey Pentcho, your nose must be a km long by now from telling all your lies :-)
You are solidly in the misinformation business and trying to rewrite history.
"God is omnipotent, but even He cannot change the past. That is why He created
historians." -- Anonymous
You have been informed MANY times that the MMX cannot discern among three
competing theories. You have told the baldfaced lie about the MMX confirming
NET so many times now that one must conclude that your brain is hermetically
sealed, or maybe it's a black hole: Truth goes in but no truth comes out,
or maybe your brain has a truth diode in place. In any case, you have
presented nothing but lies and your writings are completely devoid of any
redeeming scientific value.
Gary
Pentcho Valev
Feb 5, 2015, 5:27:10 AM2/5/15
to
http://www.light2015.org/Home/CosmicLight/Einstein-Centenary.html
"Eddington in 1919 was able to observe, during an eclipse, the effect of the Sun on the light coming from a far away star. The observed deflection was in perfect agreement with Einstein's theory while the prediction of the old theory of Newton was off by a factor of 2: a triumph for Einstein!"
Are you sure, Einsteinians?
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
"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://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert: "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.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
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://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "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. (...) L'expédition britannique envoie deux équipes indépendantes sur le trajet de l'éclipse : l'une dirigée par Andrew Crommelin dans la ville de Sobral, dans le nord du Brésil, l'autre conduite par Eddington lui-même sur l'île de Principe, en face de Libreville, au Gabon. Le matériel embarqué est des plus sommaires au regard des moyens actuels : une lunette astronomique de seulement 20 cm de diamètre en chaque lieu, avec un instrument de secours de 10 cm à Sobral. Pour éviter l'emploi d'une monture mécanique trop lourde à transporter, la lumière est dirigée vers les lunettes par de simples miroirs mobiles, ce qui se révélera être une bien mauvaise idée. La stratégie est assez complexe. Il s'agit d'exposer des plaques photographiques durant l'éclipse pour enregistrer la position d'un maximum d'étoiles autour du Soleil, puis de comparer avec des plaques témoins de la même région du ciel obtenues de nuit, quelques mois plus tard. La différence des positions entre les deux séries de plaques, avec et sans le Soleil, serait la preuve de l'effet de la relativité et le résultat est bien sûr connu à l'avance. Problème non négligeable : la différence attendue est minuscule. Au maximum, au bord même du Soleil, l'écart prévu est seulement de un demi dix-millième de degré, soit très précisément 1,75 seconde d'arc (1,75"), correspondant à l'écart entre les deux bords d'une pièce de monnaie observée à 3 km de distance ! Or, quantités d'effets parasites peuvent contaminer les mesures, la qualité de l'émulsion photographique, les variations dans l'atmosphère terrestre, la dilatation des miroirs... Le jour J, l'équipe brésilienne voit le ciel se dégager au dernier moment mais Eddington n'aperçoit l'éclipse qu'à travers les nuages ! Sa quête est très maigre, tout juste deux plaques sur lesquelles on distingue à peine cinq étoiles. Pressé de rentrer en Angleterre, Eddington ne prend même pas la précaution d'attendre les plaques témoins. Les choses vont beaucoup mieux à Sobral : 19 plaques avec plus d'une dizaine d'étoiles et huit plaques prises avec la lunette de secours. L'équipe reste sur place deux mois pour réaliser les fameuses plaques témoins et, le 25 août, tout le monde est en Angleterre. Eddington se lance dans des calculs qu'il est le seul à contrôler, décidant de corriger ses propres mesures avec des plaques obtenues avec un autre instrument, dans une autre région du ciel, autour d'Arcturus. Il conclut finalement à une déviation comprise entre 1,31" et 1,91" : le triomphe d'Einstein est assuré ! Très peu sûr de sa méthode, Eddington attend anxieusement les résultats de l'autre expédition qui arrivent en octobre, comme une douche froide : suivant une méthode d'analyse rigoureuse, l'instrument principal de Sobral a mesuré une déviation de seulement 0,93". La catastrophe est en vue. S'ensuivent de longues tractations entre Eddington et Dyson, directeurs respectifs des observatoires de Cambridge et de Greenwich. On repêche alors les données de la lunette de secours de Sobral, qui a le bon goût de produire comme résultat un confortable 1,98", et le tour de passe-passe est joué. Dans la publication historique de la Royal Society, on lit comme justification une simple note : "Il reste les plaques astrographiques de Sobral qui donnent une déviation de 0,93", discordantes par une quantité au-delà des limites des erreurs accidentelles. Pour les raisons déjà longuement exposées, peu de poids est accordé à cette détermination." Plus loin, apparaît la conclusion catégorique: "Les résultats de Sobral et Principe laissent peu de doute qu'une déviation de la lumière existe au voisinage du Soleil et qu'elle est d'une amplitude exigée par la théorie de la relativité généralisée d'Einstein." Les données gênantes ont donc tout simplement été escamotées."
http://www.giacomozito.com/onair/wp-content/uploads/Albert-Einstein-Arthur-Eddington.jpg
Pentcho Valev
"Eddington in 1919 was able to observe, during an eclipse, the effect of the Sun on the light coming from a far away star. The observed deflection was in perfect agreement with Einstein's theory while the prediction of the old theory of Newton was off by a factor of 2: a triumph for Einstein!"
Are you sure, Einsteinians?
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
"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://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert: "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.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
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://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "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. (...) L'expédition britannique envoie deux équipes indépendantes sur le trajet de l'éclipse : l'une dirigée par Andrew Crommelin dans la ville de Sobral, dans le nord du Brésil, l'autre conduite par Eddington lui-même sur l'île de Principe, en face de Libreville, au Gabon. Le matériel embarqué est des plus sommaires au regard des moyens actuels : une lunette astronomique de seulement 20 cm de diamètre en chaque lieu, avec un instrument de secours de 10 cm à Sobral. Pour éviter l'emploi d'une monture mécanique trop lourde à transporter, la lumière est dirigée vers les lunettes par de simples miroirs mobiles, ce qui se révélera être une bien mauvaise idée. La stratégie est assez complexe. Il s'agit d'exposer des plaques photographiques durant l'éclipse pour enregistrer la position d'un maximum d'étoiles autour du Soleil, puis de comparer avec des plaques témoins de la même région du ciel obtenues de nuit, quelques mois plus tard. La différence des positions entre les deux séries de plaques, avec et sans le Soleil, serait la preuve de l'effet de la relativité et le résultat est bien sûr connu à l'avance. Problème non négligeable : la différence attendue est minuscule. Au maximum, au bord même du Soleil, l'écart prévu est seulement de un demi dix-millième de degré, soit très précisément 1,75 seconde d'arc (1,75"), correspondant à l'écart entre les deux bords d'une pièce de monnaie observée à 3 km de distance ! Or, quantités d'effets parasites peuvent contaminer les mesures, la qualité de l'émulsion photographique, les variations dans l'atmosphère terrestre, la dilatation des miroirs... Le jour J, l'équipe brésilienne voit le ciel se dégager au dernier moment mais Eddington n'aperçoit l'éclipse qu'à travers les nuages ! Sa quête est très maigre, tout juste deux plaques sur lesquelles on distingue à peine cinq étoiles. Pressé de rentrer en Angleterre, Eddington ne prend même pas la précaution d'attendre les plaques témoins. Les choses vont beaucoup mieux à Sobral : 19 plaques avec plus d'une dizaine d'étoiles et huit plaques prises avec la lunette de secours. L'équipe reste sur place deux mois pour réaliser les fameuses plaques témoins et, le 25 août, tout le monde est en Angleterre. Eddington se lance dans des calculs qu'il est le seul à contrôler, décidant de corriger ses propres mesures avec des plaques obtenues avec un autre instrument, dans une autre région du ciel, autour d'Arcturus. Il conclut finalement à une déviation comprise entre 1,31" et 1,91" : le triomphe d'Einstein est assuré ! Très peu sûr de sa méthode, Eddington attend anxieusement les résultats de l'autre expédition qui arrivent en octobre, comme une douche froide : suivant une méthode d'analyse rigoureuse, l'instrument principal de Sobral a mesuré une déviation de seulement 0,93". La catastrophe est en vue. S'ensuivent de longues tractations entre Eddington et Dyson, directeurs respectifs des observatoires de Cambridge et de Greenwich. On repêche alors les données de la lunette de secours de Sobral, qui a le bon goût de produire comme résultat un confortable 1,98", et le tour de passe-passe est joué. Dans la publication historique de la Royal Society, on lit comme justification une simple note : "Il reste les plaques astrographiques de Sobral qui donnent une déviation de 0,93", discordantes par une quantité au-delà des limites des erreurs accidentelles. Pour les raisons déjà longuement exposées, peu de poids est accordé à cette détermination." Plus loin, apparaît la conclusion catégorique: "Les résultats de Sobral et Principe laissent peu de doute qu'une déviation de la lumière existe au voisinage du Soleil et qu'elle est d'une amplitude exigée par la théorie de la relativité généralisée d'Einstein." Les données gênantes ont donc tout simplement été escamotées."
http://www.giacomozito.com/onair/wp-content/uploads/Albert-Einstein-Arthur-Eddington.jpg
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Feb 7, 2015, 2:53:02 AM2/7/15
to
The world slowly realizes that Einsteinians are lying about the Michelson-Morley experiment - see my comment to this video and the author of the video's replies:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cnlhNNRPw0
Is Time Travel Possible? Special Relativity
Pentcho Valev
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cnlhNNRPw0
Is Time Travel Possible? Special Relativity
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Feb 9, 2015, 7:05:52 PM2/9/15
to
Einsteiniana's zombies defend the constancy of the speed of light:
https://briankoberlein.com/2015/01/24/need-speed/
Brian Koberlein: "There's buzz in the press recently claiming that scientists have shown the speed of light in a vacuum isn't constant. It all starts with a new paper in Science that looks at spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light. Like most stories of this type, the work is interesting, but not in the way that is being hyped. To begin with, no one (not even the authors of this paper) is claiming that the speed of light isn't an absolute physical constant. In electromagnetism there are two parameters known as permittivity (which governs electric fields) and permeability (which governs magnetic fields). Combining these two parameters gives you the value of what is commonly called the speed of light. That's because the speed of a wave is governed by these parameters, giving the usual speed we observe. All experiments we've done show that these parameters and the speed of light are constant, and there's nothing in this new work that says otherwise."
http://happynicetimepeople.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/einstein-speed-limit.jpg
http://www.everythingimportant.org/Einstein_worship/DivineEinstein.jpg
Pentcho Valev
https://briankoberlein.com/2015/01/24/need-speed/
Brian Koberlein: "There's buzz in the press recently claiming that scientists have shown the speed of light in a vacuum isn't constant. It all starts with a new paper in Science that looks at spatially structured photons that travel in free space slower than the speed of light. Like most stories of this type, the work is interesting, but not in the way that is being hyped. To begin with, no one (not even the authors of this paper) is claiming that the speed of light isn't an absolute physical constant. In electromagnetism there are two parameters known as permittivity (which governs electric fields) and permeability (which governs magnetic fields). Combining these two parameters gives you the value of what is commonly called the speed of light. That's because the speed of a wave is governed by these parameters, giving the usual speed we observe. All experiments we've done show that these parameters and the speed of light are constant, and there's nothing in this new work that says otherwise."
http://happynicetimepeople.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/einstein-speed-limit.jpg
http://www.everythingimportant.org/Einstein_worship/DivineEinstein.jpg
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Feb 10, 2015, 4:09:24 PM2/10/15
to
Einsteiniana's zombies blatantly lying about the Michelson-Morley experiment:
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/11/22/light-matters/
Brian Koberlein: "Yesterday I talked about time dilation due to both gravity and relative motion. The reason for both of these effects is the fact that light in a vacuum always has a constant speed. The first experimental evidence for the constancy of light was performed in 1887 by Michelson and Morley..."
Einstein (and everybody else at the beginning of the 20th century) knew perfectly well that, in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light predicted by the immobile ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
https://briankoberlein.com/2014/11/22/light-matters/
Brian Koberlein: "Yesterday I talked about time dilation due to both gravity and relative motion. The reason for both of these effects is the fact that light in a vacuum always has a constant speed. The first experimental evidence for the constancy of light was performed in 1887 by Michelson and Morley..."
Einstein (and everybody else at the beginning of the 20th century) knew perfectly well that, in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light predicted by the immobile ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
Gary Harnagel
Feb 10, 2015, 6:21:34 PM2/10/15
to
On Tuesday, February 10, 2015 at 2:09:24 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Einstein (and everybody else at the beginning of the 20th century) knew
> perfectly well that, in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing
> the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment
> unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's
> emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed
> of the source) speed of light predicted by the immobile ether theory and
> later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
>
> Pentcho Valev
>
> Einstein (and everybody else at the beginning of the 20th century) knew
> perfectly well that, in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing
> the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment
> unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's
> emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed
> of the source) speed of light predicted by the immobile ether theory and
> later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
>
Pentcho, you lying weasel, you have been informed MANY times that the MMX
cannot discern among three competing theories. You have told this
bald-faced lie about the MMX confirming NET so many times now that one must
conclude that your brain is hermetically sealed, or maybe it's a black hole:
Truth goes in but no truth comes out, or maybe your brain has a truth diode
in place. In any case, you have presented nothing but lies and your writings
are completely devoid of any redeeming scientific value.
You are a joke!
Truth goes in but no truth comes out, or maybe your brain has a truth diode
in place. In any case, you have presented nothing but lies and your writings
are completely devoid of any redeeming scientific value.
Gary
xxe...@att.net
Feb 11, 2015, 3:11:25 PM2/11/15
to
0 new messages