Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #603419 > unrolled thread

Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals?

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2023-03-09 03:44 -0800
    Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-09 04:40 -0800
      Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-03-09 14:53 +0100
        Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-09 06:11 -0800
          Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-03-09 15:29 +0100
        Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-09 15:20 +0100
          Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-09 06:38 -0800
            Odious kapo Richard Hertz at work "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-03-09 06:43 -0800
          Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-03-09 15:59 +0100
            Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-09 07:22 -0800
            Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Paparios <mrios@ing.puc.cl> - 2023-03-09 10:36 -0800
              Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-03-09 20:36 +0100
            Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-09 19:52 +0100
            Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2023-03-09 11:00 -0800
              Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-03-09 20:41 +0100
                Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2023-03-09 20:52 +0100
        Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Volney <volney@invalid.invalid> - 2023-03-09 14:35 -0500
    Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-03-09 14:41 +0100
      Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-09 06:21 -0800
      Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2023-03-09 08:50 -0800
        Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-03-09 18:08 +0100
    Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-09 13:24 -0800
      Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-03-09 21:59 -0800
      Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Tom Roberts <tjoberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2023-03-10 11:24 -0600
      Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2023-03-10 10:55 -0800
    Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-09 14:17 -0800
      Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-03-10 07:42 -0800
        Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-10 07:57 -0800
    Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2023-03-10 02:36 -0800
      Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2023-03-10 04:41 -0800
        Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2023-03-10 05:06 -0800
        Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 07:22 -0800
      Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2023-03-10 08:31 -0800
        Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Athel Cornish-Bowden <athel.cb@gmail.com> - 2023-03-10 18:10 +0100
        Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2023-03-10 09:34 -0800
          Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2023-03-10 09:39 -0800
            Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 09:55 -0800
              Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2023-03-10 10:17 -0800
                Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 10:28 -0800
                  Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2023-03-10 11:15 -0800
                    Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2023-03-10 11:37 -0800
                      Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 11:53 -0800
                        Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2023-03-10 12:14 -0800
                          Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 12:32 -0800
                          Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 13:12 -0800
                            Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2023-03-10 13:25 -0800
                              Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 13:36 -0800
                              Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 13:46 -0800
                              Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 13:48 -0800
                                Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2023-03-10 14:06 -0800
                                  Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 14:38 -0800
                                    Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2023-03-10 15:02 -0800
                Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 10:34 -0800
                Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 10:37 -0800
                Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 10:42 -0800
                Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 11:09 -0800
            Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 10:11 -0800
        Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2023-03-10 15:19 -0800
          Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? John-Erik Persson <john.erik.persson@gmail.com> - 2023-03-11 03:10 -0800
    Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 07:30 -0800
    Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 07:43 -0800
    Re: Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals? Laurence Clark Crossen <l.c.crossen@hotmail.com> - 2023-03-10 13:17 -0800

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#603455

On 2023-03-09 16:50:29 +0000, JanPB said:

> On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 5:41:41 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-03-09 11:44:38 +0000, Pentcho (liar by omission) Valev said:>> 
>> > Below John Norton exposes theoretical physicists ("later writers") 
>> as> > deliberate liars. They use the Michelson-Morley experiment "as 
>> support> > for the light postulate of special relativity", 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
>> I've commented before that your evocation of Stachel is thoroughly> 
>> dishonest, but you just ignore it and continue to imply that Stachel> 
>> was on your side.
> 
> That's what Pentcho has been doing for 3 decades now. He is yet
> another monomaniac with two obsessions: relativity theory and
> a perpetual motion machine construction.
> 
> It's also very characteristic that the links he posts frequently
> contradict his claims. He simply does not read them, only
> quickly scans the headlines and runs to the keyboard.

That's my impression. The link to Stachel is the only one I've bothered 
to follow in a serious way. That's why it's usually the one I refer to. 
Pentcho simply omits the part where Stachel explains that what he said 
in the previous paragraph that Pentcho likes needed to be thought about 
more detail.
> 
> I pity the guy, such a waste of life.

I don't know what Pentcho said about relativity three decades ago, but 
I did follow his views on the 2nd law of thermodynamics. What is sad is 
that at that time he did make an effort to discuss things with his 
critics, and even briefly recognized that he was wrong about something. 
Now all that is gone: he makes no attempt to engage with his critics.


-- 
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603489

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:44:40 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:

> 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." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory 

> The deliberate lie: 
> 
> "The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world." http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm 

> Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding." https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm 
Mr. Valev. You often emphasize the fact that wavelengths don't change. I agree. However, with the definition of the meter it appears that they do.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603516

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:44:40 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
> > 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."
> 
> > The deliberate lie:
> >
> 
> 
> > Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. Howev
> Mr. Valev. You often emphasize the fact that wavelengths don't change. I agree. However, with the definition of the meter it appears that they do.


an agnostic anti-einstitian?



-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603557

On 3/9/23 3:24 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:44:40 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote: 
> Mr. Valev. You often emphasize the fact that wavelengths don't 
> change. I agree. However, with the definition of the meter it appears
> that they do.

The annual Doppler effect is generally measured using spectrometers that
measure wavelength; they show that the wavelength of a given
monochromatic light beam from a distant object varies as the earth
orbits the sun. This was known long before the redefinition of the meter
in 1983.

Bottom line: the wavelength of a given monochromatic light beam varies,
depending on how it is measured (i.e. which locally-inertial frame is
used). You and Valev are both wrong -- the world we inhabit does not
conform to your wishes and fantasies.

Tom Roberts

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603574

Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:44:40 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> 
> > 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."
> 
> > The deliberate lie:
> >
> 
> 
> > Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. Howev
> Mr. Valev. You often emphasize the fact that wavelengths don't change. I agree. However, with the definition of the meter it appears that they do.


(Mr. Valev (cute)..."i agree")???? ...and then he cuts his throat. same
MO.









-- 
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
 to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
 the unchallengeable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603492

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:44:40 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Below John Norton exposes theoretical physicists ("later writers") as deliberate liars. 
For example, Al Foos, in his new book, thinks that wavelengths change in the P&R rather than the speed of light because the meter changes length. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603544

On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 2:17:32 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:44:40 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Below John Norton exposes theoretical physicists ("later writers") as deliberate liars.
> For example, Al Foos, in his new book, thinks that wavelengths change in the P&R rather than the speed of light because the meter changes length.

Can;t fix imbeciles

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603547

On Friday, 10 March 2023 at 16:42:56 UTC+1, Dono. wrote:
> On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 2:17:32 PM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Thursday, March 9, 2023 at 3:44:40 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote: 
> > > Below John Norton exposes theoretical physicists ("later writers") as deliberate liars. 
> > For example, Al Foos, in his new book, thinks that wavelengths change in the P&R rather than the speed of light because the meter changes length.
> Can;t fix imbeciles

Sure, they will stay relativistic fanatics.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603529

"The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration completed an end-to-end system test of their detection capabilities at their recent joint collaboration meeting in Arcadia, CA [in 2011]. Analysis of data from LIGO and Virgo's most recent observation run revealed evidence of the elusive signal from a neutron star spiraling into a black hole. The collaboration knew that the "detection" could be a "blind injection" -- a fake signal added to the data without telling the analysts, to test the detector and analysis. Nonetheless, the collaboration proceeded under the assumption that the signal was real, and wrote and approved a scientific paper reporting the ground-breaking discovery. A few moments later, according to plan, it was revealed that the signal was indeed a blind injection. While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves. LIGO and Virgo scientists are looking forward to observations with the advanced detectors which are expected to contain many real signals from the distant reaches of the universe." https://www.ligo.org/news/blind-injection-content.html

How can the "detection capabilities" be tested by adding fake data to the system? It is like testing the detection capabilities of a radio music player by inserting music in the device. There is only one thing that can be tested in this way: the scientific community's readiness to be fooled.

Before 2015, LIGO fakers diligently rehearsed. They would secretly inject false data, inform the scientific community about a great discovery, study scientists' reactions, finally fix noticed Achilles heels.

The dress rehearsal occurred in 2010. A few "expert administrators" injected fake data, deceived the whole world and misled astronomers who wasted time and money in search of the electromagnetic counterpart. Remarkably, "this became particularly useful starting in September 2015":

"...a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data, maintaining strict confidentiality. They did just that in the early morning hours of 16 September 2010. Automated data analyses alerted us to an extraordinary event within eight minutes of data collection, and within 45 minutes we had our astronomer colleagues with optical telescopes imaging the area we estimated the gravitational wave to have come from. Since it came from the direction of the Canis Major constellation, this event picked up the nickname of the "Big Dog Event". For months we worked on vetting this candidate gravitational wave detection, extracting parameters that described the source, and even wrote a paper. Finally, at the next collaboration meeting, after all the work had been cataloged and we voted unanimously to publish the paper the next day. However, it was revealed immediately after the vote to be an injection and that our estimated parameters for the simulated source were accurate. Again, there was no detection, but we learned a great deal about our abilities to know when we detected a gravitational wave and that we can do science with the data. This became particularly useful starting in September 2015." https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/a-null-result-is-not-a-failure

In the physics establishment, only Natalia Kiriushcheva found courage to expose (more precisely, to hint at) the truth. And the truth is that LIGO's gravitational waves are fakes:

"On September 16, 2010, a false signal - a so-called "blind injection" - was fed into both the Ligo and Virgo systems as part of an exercise to "test ... detection capabilities". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. But take a look at the visualisation of the faked signal, says Dr Kiriushcheva, and compare it to the image apparently showing the collision of the twin black holes, seen on the second page of the recently-published discovery paper. "They look very, very similar," she says. "It means that they knew exactly what they wanted to get and this is suspicious for us: when you know what you want to get from science, usually you can get it." The apparent similarity is more curious because the faked event purported to show not a collision between two black holes, but the gravitational waves created by a neutron star spiralling into a black hole. The signals appear so similar, in fact, that Dr Kiriushcheva questions whether THE "TRUE" SIGNAL MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN AN ECHO OF THE FAKE, "STORED IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEM from when they turned off the equipment five years before"." https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/why-albert-einstein-continues-to-make-waves-as-black-holes-collide-1.188114

Kiriushcheva immediately disappeared from public debate, converted into an unperson perhaps:

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed."

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603536

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:36:12 AM UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration completed an end-to-end system test of their detection capabilities at their recent joint collaboration meeting in Arcadia, CA [in 2011]. Analysis of data from LIGO and Virgo's most recent observation run revealed evidence of the elusive signal from a neutron star spiraling into a black hole. The collaboration knew that the "detection" could be a "blind injection" -- a fake signal added to the data without telling the analysts, to test the detector and analysis. Nonetheless, the collaboration proceeded under the assumption that the signal was real, and wrote and approved a scientific paper reporting the ground-breaking discovery. A few moments later, according to plan, it was revealed that the signal was indeed a blind injection. While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves. LIGO and Virgo scientists are looking forward to observations with the advanced detectors which are expected to contain many real signals from the distant reaches of the universe." https://www.ligo.org/news/blind-injection-content.html 
> 
> How can the "detection capabilities" be tested by adding fake data to the system? It is like testing the detection capabilities of a radio music player by inserting music in the device. There is only one thing that can be tested in this way: the scientific community's readiness to be fooled. 
> 
> Before 2015, LIGO fakers diligently rehearsed. They would secretly inject false data, inform the scientific community about a great discovery, study scientists' reactions, finally fix noticed Achilles heels. 
> 
> The dress rehearsal occurred in 2010. A few "expert administrators" injected fake data, deceived the whole world and misled astronomers who wasted time and money in search of the electromagnetic counterpart. Remarkably, "this became particularly useful starting in September 2015": 
> 
> "...a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data, maintaining strict confidentiality. They did just that in the early morning hours of 16 September 2010. Automated data analyses alerted us to an extraordinary event within eight minutes of data collection, and within 45 minutes we had our astronomer colleagues with optical telescopes imaging the area we estimated the gravitational wave to have come from. Since it came from the direction of the Canis Major constellation, this event picked up the nickname of the "Big Dog Event". For months we worked on vetting this candidate gravitational wave detection, extracting parameters that described the source, and even wrote a paper. Finally, at the next collaboration meeting, after all the work had been cataloged and we voted unanimously to publish the paper the next day. However, it was revealed immediately after the vote to be an injection and that our estimated parameters for the simulated source were accurate. Again, there was no detection, but we learned a great deal about our abilities to know when we detected a gravitational wave and that we can do science with the data. This became particularly useful starting in September 2015." https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/a-null-result-is-not-a-failure 
> 
> In the physics establishment, only Natalia Kiriushcheva found courage to expose (more precisely, to hint at) the truth. And the truth is that LIGO's gravitational waves are fakes: 
> 
> "On September 16, 2010, a false signal - a so-called "blind injection" - was fed into both the Ligo and Virgo systems as part of an exercise to "test ... detection capabilities". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. But take a look at the visualisation of the faked signal, says Dr Kiriushcheva, and compare it to the image apparently showing the collision of the twin black holes, seen on the second page of the recently-published discovery paper. "They look very, very similar," she says. "It means that they knew exactly what they wanted to get and this is suspicious for us: when you know what you want to get from science, usually you can get it." The apparent similarity is more curious because the faked event purported to show not a collision between two black holes, but the gravitational waves created by a neutron star spiralling into a black hole. The signals appear so similar, in fact, that Dr Kiriushcheva questions whether THE "TRUE" SIGNAL MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN AN ECHO OF THE FAKE, "STORED IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEM from when they turned off the equipment five years before"." https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/why-albert-einstein-continues-to-make-waves-as-black-holes-collide-1.188114 
> 
> Kiriushcheva immediately disappeared from public debate, converted into an unperson perhaps: 
> 
> George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed." 
> 
> More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev 
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Pentcho

We do not need time dilation
SRT clock effect:   (1-v^2/c^2)^1/2
GRT clock effect:   (1-e^2/c^2)^1/2   (e is escape velocity or radial ether wind)
Interpreting v as tangential ether wind and e as radial ether wind we can see that clock behaviour can be explained by ONE ether model instead of TWO relativity models.
Without time dilation we instead need a length contraction TWO TIMES the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. This kind of contraction is more realistic, since the searched effect in TWO ANTI-PARALLEL light motions is compensated in TWO ANTI-PARALLEL force motions for controlling atomic separations. MMX is USELESS.
We find DOUBLED contraction and NO dilation.
Potier was wrong in 1887 by stating that light takes a longer way in the reference arm, since coherent technology means that wave fronts ALWAYS are parallel to mirrors in MMX.
MMX was not a ZERO result but NO RESULT at all.

With best regards from _____________________________ John-Erik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603537

On Friday, 10 March 2023 at 13:41:04 UTC+1, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 11:36:12 AM UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote: 
> > "The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration completed an end-to-end system test of their detection capabilities at their recent joint collaboration meeting in Arcadia, CA [in 2011]. Analysis of data from LIGO and Virgo's most recent observation run revealed evidence of the elusive signal from a neutron star spiraling into a black hole. The collaboration knew that the "detection" could be a "blind injection" -- a fake signal added to the data without telling the analysts, to test the detector and analysis. Nonetheless, the collaboration proceeded under the assumption that the signal was real, and wrote and approved a scientific paper reporting the ground-breaking discovery. A few moments later, according to plan, it was revealed that the signal was indeed a blind injection. While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves. LIGO and Virgo scientists are looking forward to observations with the advanced detectors which are expected to contain many real signals from the distant reaches of the universe." https://www.ligo.org/news/blind-injection-content.html 
> > 
> > How can the "detection capabilities" be tested by adding fake data to the system? It is like testing the detection capabilities of a radio music player by inserting music in the device. There is only one thing that can be tested in this way: the scientific community's readiness to be fooled. 
> > 
> > Before 2015, LIGO fakers diligently rehearsed. They would secretly inject false data, inform the scientific community about a great discovery, study scientists' reactions, finally fix noticed Achilles heels. 
> > 
> > The dress rehearsal occurred in 2010. A few "expert administrators" injected fake data, deceived the whole world and misled astronomers who wasted time and money in search of the electromagnetic counterpart. Remarkably, "this became particularly useful starting in September 2015": 
> > 
> > "...a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data, maintaining strict confidentiality. They did just that in the early morning hours of 16 September 2010. Automated data analyses alerted us to an extraordinary event within eight minutes of data collection, and within 45 minutes we had our astronomer colleagues with optical telescopes imaging the area we estimated the gravitational wave to have come from. Since it came from the direction of the Canis Major constellation, this event picked up the nickname of the "Big Dog Event". For months we worked on vetting this candidate gravitational wave detection, extracting parameters that described the source, and even wrote a paper. Finally, at the next collaboration meeting, after all the work had been cataloged and we voted unanimously to publish the paper the next day. However, it was revealed immediately after the vote to be an injection and that our estimated parameters for the simulated source were accurate. Again, there was no detection, but we learned a great deal about our abilities to know when we detected a gravitational wave and that we can do science with the data. This became particularly useful starting in September 2015." https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/a-null-result-is-not-a-failure 
> > 
> > In the physics establishment, only Natalia Kiriushcheva found courage to expose (more precisely, to hint at) the truth. And the truth is that LIGO's gravitational waves are fakes: 
> > 
> > "On September 16, 2010, a false signal - a so-called "blind injection" - was fed into both the Ligo and Virgo systems as part of an exercise to "test ... detection capabilities". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. But take a look at the visualisation of the faked signal, says Dr Kiriushcheva, and compare it to the image apparently showing the collision of the twin black holes, seen on the second page of the recently-published discovery paper. "They look very, very similar," she says. "It means that they knew exactly what they wanted to get and this is suspicious for us: when you know what you want to get from science, usually you can get it." The apparent similarity is more curious because the faked event purported to show not a collision between two black holes, but the gravitational waves created by a neutron star spiralling into a black hole. The signals appear so similar, in fact, that Dr Kiriushcheva questions whether THE "TRUE" SIGNAL MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN AN ECHO OF THE FAKE, "STORED IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEM from when they turned off the equipment five years before"." https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/why-albert-einstein-continues-to-make-waves-as-black-holes-collide-1.188114 
> > 
> > Kiriushcheva immediately disappeared from public debate, converted into an unperson perhaps: 
> > 
> > George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed." 
> > 
> > More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev 
> > 
> > Pentcho Valev
> Pentcho 
> 
> We do not need time dilation 

and that's why all real timekeeping systems
keep measuring t'=t with "improper" clocks.
We don't but idiot physicists do. And that's why
wave their arms, scream, insult and slander.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603541

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 4:41:04 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> We do not need time dilation 
> SRT clock effect: (1-v^2/c^2)^1/2 
> GRT clock effect: (1-e^2/c^2)^1/2 (e is escape velocity or radial ether wind) 
> Interpreting v as tangential ether wind and e as radial ether wind we can see that clock behaviour can be explained by ONE ether model instead of TWO relativity models. 
> Without time dilation we instead need a length contraction TWO TIMES the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. This kind of contraction is more realistic, since the searched effect in TWO ANTI-PARALLEL light motions is compensated in TWO ANTI-PARALLEL force motions for controlling atomic separations. MMX is USELESS. 
> We find DOUBLED contraction and NO dilation. 
> Potier was wrong in 1887 by stating that light takes a longer way in the reference arm, since coherent technology means that wave fronts ALWAYS are parallel to mirrors in MMX. 
> MMX was not a ZERO result but NO RESULT at all. 
> 
> With best regards from _____________________________ John-Erik
We don't need length contraction either. Both concepts are ad hoc nonsense.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603551

Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two:

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

Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light:

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

Possible explanations:

(A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable.

(B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about.

My estimate:

(A) 95% true.

(B) 5% true.

See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603554

On 2023-03-10 16:31:03 +0000, Pentcho (inveterate liar by omission) Valev said:

> Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational 
> deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of 
> two:
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational 
> deflection of light:
> 
> 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 
> 
> 
> Possible explanations:
> 
> (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by 
> brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable.
> 
> (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about.

(C) Pentcho is spouting nonsense as usual.
> 
> My estimate:
> 
> (A) 95% true.
> 
> (B) 5% true.

(C) 100% true
> 
> See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
> 
> Pentcho Valev


-- 
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly 
in England until 1987.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603558

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two: 
> 
> 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 
> 
> Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light: 
> 
> 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 
> 
> Possible explanations: 
> 
> (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable. 
> 
> (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about. 
> 
> My estimate: 
> 
> (A) 95% true. 
> 
> (B) 5% true. 
> 
> See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev 
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Von Soldner's 1801 paper, plagiarized by Einstein in 1911.

Von Soldner was a newtonian, and based his work on Laplace, another newtonian, plus Euler (also newtonian).

So, Newton's theory predicts gravitational bending of light, with formulae and a detailed mathematical theory.

What is most, Von Soldner wanted to know which geometrical function described such deflection.

And he, mathematically, proved that it was a hyperbola.

Einstein avoided this conflicting discovery, because it killed the constant speed of light assertion. But he used it in 1911 and 1915,
without telling to anyone or putting it on writing. He just stated that he had doubled his 1911 (Von Soldner) value and the cretins 
applauded, except a few senior astronomers that demanded to read his calculations. They tried for 10 years, then OBLIVION.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603560

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:34:28 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote: 
> > Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two: 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light: 
> > 
> > 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 
> > 
> > Possible explanations: 
> > 
> > (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable. 
> > 
> > (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about. 
> > 
> > My estimate: 
> > 
> > (A) 95% true. 
> > 
> > (B) 5% true. 
> > 
> > See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev 
> > 
> > Pentcho Valev
> Von Soldner's 1801 paper, plagiarized by Einstein in 1911. 
> 
> Von Soldner was a newtonian, and based his work on Laplace, another newtonian, plus Euler (also newtonian). 
> 
> So, Newton's theory predicts gravitational bending of light, with formulae and a detailed mathematical theory. 
> 
> What is most, Von Soldner wanted to know which geometrical function described such deflection. 
> 
> And he, mathematically, proved that it was a hyperbola. 
> 
> Einstein avoided this conflicting discovery, because it killed the constant speed of light assertion. But he used it in 1911 and 1915, 
> without telling to anyone or putting it on writing. He just stated that he had doubled his 1911 (Von Soldner) value and the cretins 
> applauded, except a few senior astronomers that demanded to read his calculations. They tried for 10 years, then OBLIVION.

Laurence

Yes, we need doubled length contraction to explain MMX without time dilation

John-Erik
----------------------------------------------------------
Pentcho

I am interested to see your reaction to my post above

John-Erik
-------------------------------------------------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603563

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:34:28 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote: 
> > > Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two: 
> > > 
> > > 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 
> > > 
> > > Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light: 
> > > 
> > > 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 
> > > 
> > > Possible explanations: 
> > > 
> > > (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable. 
> > > 
> > > (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about. 
> > > 
> > > My estimate: 
> > > 
> > > (A) 95% true. 
> > > 
> > > (B) 5% true. 
> > > 
> > > See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev 
> > > 
> > > Pentcho Valev 
> > Von Soldner's 1801 paper, plagiarized by Einstein in 1911. 
> > 
> > Von Soldner was a newtonian, and based his work on Laplace, another newtonian, plus Euler (also newtonian). 
> > 
> > So, Newton's theory predicts gravitational bending of light, with formulae and a detailed mathematical theory. 
> > 
> > What is most, Von Soldner wanted to know which geometrical function described such deflection. 
> > 
> > And he, mathematically, proved that it was a hyperbola. 
> > 
> > Einstein avoided this conflicting discovery, because it killed the constant speed of light assertion. But he used it in 1911 and 1915, 
> > without telling to anyone or putting it on writing. He just stated that he had doubled his 1911 (Von Soldner) value and the cretins 
> > applauded, except a few senior astronomers that demanded to read his calculations. They tried for 10 years, then OBLIVION.
> Laurence 
> 
> Yes, we need doubled length contraction to explain MMX without time dilation 
> 
> John-Erik 
> ---------------------------------------------------------- 
> Pentcho 
> 
> I am interested to see your reaction to my post above 
> 
> John-Erik 
> -------------------------------------------------
Alright. That is just an empty assertion. You have not explained how an ad hoc concept is valid or predicts anything. An ad hoc concept cannot predict because it is self-contradictory. Lorentz understood that there is only one time and not two, the second being ad hoc. Einstein was the one who asserted that the other time is real also. That is nonsense because of time= distance/speed, as in 2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph. A sound physics definition such as this is necessary. Changing the units of measure is just monkeying around. Relativity is pseudoscience.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603565

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:56:00 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote: 
> > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:34:28 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote: 
> > > > Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two: 
> > > > 
> > > > 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 
> > > > 
> > > > Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light: 
> > > > 
> > > > 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 
> > > > 
> > > > Possible explanations: 
> > > > 
> > > > (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable. 
> > > > 
> > > > (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about. 
> > > > 
> > > > My estimate: 
> > > > 
> > > > (A) 95% true. 
> > > > 
> > > > (B) 5% true. 
> > > > 
> > > > See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev 
> > > > 
> > > > Pentcho Valev 
> > > Von Soldner's 1801 paper, plagiarized by Einstein in 1911. 
> > > 
> > > Von Soldner was a newtonian, and based his work on Laplace, another newtonian, plus Euler (also newtonian). 
> > > 
> > > So, Newton's theory predicts gravitational bending of light, with formulae and a detailed mathematical theory. 
> > > 
> > > What is most, Von Soldner wanted to know which geometrical function described such deflection. 
> > > 
> > > And he, mathematically, proved that it was a hyperbola. 
> > > 
> > > Einstein avoided this conflicting discovery, because it killed the constant speed of light assertion. But he used it in 1911 and 1915, 
> > > without telling to anyone or putting it on writing. He just stated that he had doubled his 1911 (Von Soldner) value and the cretins 
> > > applauded, except a few senior astronomers that demanded to read his calculations. They tried for 10 years, then OBLIVION. 
> > Laurence 
> > 
> > Yes, we need doubled length contraction to explain MMX without time dilation 
> > 
> > John-Erik 
> > ---------------------------------------------------------- 
> > Pentcho 
> > 
> > I am interested to see your reaction to my post above 
> > 
> > John-Erik 
> > -------------------------------------------------
> Alright. That is just an empty assertion. You have not explained how an ad hoc concept is valid or predicts anything. An ad hoc concept cannot predict because it is self-contradictory. Lorentz understood that there is only one time and not two, the second being ad hoc. Einstein was the one who asserted that the other time is real also. That is nonsense because of time= distance/speed, as in 2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph. A sound physics definition such as this is necessary. Changing the units of measure is just monkeying around. Relativity is pseudoscience.

Laurence   &   Pentcho

In MMX the expected effect is caused by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in light. However the Atomic separation in the equipment is controlled by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in the control of the atomic separation. Therefore we MUST have a length contraction TWO times the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. This contraction is real and does not demand the ABSURD concept time dilation. MMX is not a zero result but NO RESULT at all.

With best regards from _____________________________________________ John-Erik

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603566

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:17:13 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:56:00 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote: 
> > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:34:28 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote: 
> > > > > Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > 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 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Possible explanations: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > My estimate: 
> > > > > 
> > > > > (A) 95% true. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > (B) 5% true. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Pentcho Valev 
> > > > Von Soldner's 1801 paper, plagiarized by Einstein in 1911. 
> > > > 
> > > > Von Soldner was a newtonian, and based his work on Laplace, another newtonian, plus Euler (also newtonian). 
> > > > 
> > > > So, Newton's theory predicts gravitational bending of light, with formulae and a detailed mathematical theory. 
> > > > 
> > > > What is most, Von Soldner wanted to know which geometrical function described such deflection. 
> > > > 
> > > > And he, mathematically, proved that it was a hyperbola. 
> > > > 
> > > > Einstein avoided this conflicting discovery, because it killed the constant speed of light assertion. But he used it in 1911 and 1915, 
> > > > without telling to anyone or putting it on writing. He just stated that he had doubled his 1911 (Von Soldner) value and the cretins 
> > > > applauded, except a few senior astronomers that demanded to read his calculations. They tried for 10 years, then OBLIVION. 
> > > Laurence 
> > > 
> > > Yes, we need doubled length contraction to explain MMX without time dilation 
> > > 
> > > John-Erik 
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------- 
> > > Pentcho 
> > > 
> > > I am interested to see your reaction to my post above 
> > > 
> > > John-Erik 
> > > ------------------------------------------------- 
> > Alright. That is just an empty assertion. You have not explained how an ad hoc concept is valid or predicts anything. An ad hoc concept cannot predict because it is self-contradictory. Lorentz understood that there is only one time and not two, the second being ad hoc. Einstein was the one who asserted that the other time is real also. That is nonsense because of time= distance/speed, as in 2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph. A sound physics definition such as this is necessary. Changing the units of measure is just monkeying around. Relativity is pseudoscience.
> Laurence & Pentcho 
> 
> In MMX the expected effect is caused by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in light. However the Atomic separation in the equipment is controlled by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in the control of the atomic separation. Therefore we MUST have a length contraction TWO times the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. This contraction is real and does not demand the ABSURD concept time dilation. MMX is not a zero result but NO RESULT at all. 
> 
> With best regards from _____________________________________________ John-Erik
If time dilation is absurd, so is length contraction for the same reasons. Elementary logic suffices to refute such notions. Tesla dismissed relativity because space doesn't bend. He understood reification fallacy is sufficient to invalidate relativity. You don't say why you feel it necessary to suppose any atomic separation. You should study Pentcho Valev's posts. He has recently shown the MMX is easily explained without relativity. I don't know what your problem is. Literal length contraction was quickly discarded by the sensible scientists who first proposed it by about 1890. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#603577

On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:28:35 AM UTC-8, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 10:17:13 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote: 
> > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:56:00 PM UTC+1, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote: 
> > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 9:39:33 AM UTC-8, John-Erik Persson wrote: 
> > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 6:34:28 PM UTC+1, Richard Hertz wrote: 
> > > > > On Friday, March 10, 2023 at 1:31:05 PM UTC-3, Pentcho Valev wrote: 
> > > > > > Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two: 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 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 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light: 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 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 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Possible explanations: 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > My estimate: 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (A) 95% true. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > (B) 5% true. 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Pentcho Valev 
> > > > > Von Soldner's 1801 paper, plagiarized by Einstein in 1911. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Von Soldner was a newtonian, and based his work on Laplace, another newtonian, plus Euler (also newtonian). 
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, Newton's theory predicts gravitational bending of light, with formulae and a detailed mathematical theory. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > What is most, Von Soldner wanted to know which geometrical function described such deflection. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > And he, mathematically, proved that it was a hyperbola. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > Einstein avoided this conflicting discovery, because it killed the constant speed of light assertion. But he used it in 1911 and 1915, 
> > > > > without telling to anyone or putting it on writing. He just stated that he had doubled his 1911 (Von Soldner) value and the cretins 
> > > > > applauded, except a few senior astronomers that demanded to read his calculations. They tried for 10 years, then OBLIVION. 
> > > > Laurence 
> > > > 
> > > > Yes, we need doubled length contraction to explain MMX without time dilation 
> > > > 
> > > > John-Erik 
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- 
> > > > Pentcho 
> > > > 
> > > > I am interested to see your reaction to my post above 
> > > > 
> > > > John-Erik 
> > > > ------------------------------------------------- 
> > > Alright. That is just an empty assertion. You have not explained how an ad hoc concept is valid or predicts anything. An ad hoc concept cannot predict because it is self-contradictory. Lorentz understood that there is only one time and not two, the second being ad hoc. Einstein was the one who asserted that the other time is real also. That is nonsense because of time= distance/speed, as in 2 hours= 60 miles/30 mph. A sound physics definition such as this is necessary. Changing the units of measure is just monkeying around. Relativity is pseudoscience. 
> > Laurence & Pentcho 
> > 
> > In MMX the expected effect is caused by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in light. However the Atomic separation in the equipment is controlled by TWO ANTI_PARALLEL MOVING FORCES in the control of the atomic separation. Therefore we MUST have a length contraction TWO times the Lorentz-FitzGerald contraction. This contraction is real and does not demand the ABSURD concept time dilation. MMX is not a zero result but NO RESULT at all. 
> > 
> > With best regards from _____________________________________________ John-Erik
> If time dilation is absurd, so is length contraction for the same reasons. Elementary logic suffices to refute such notions. Tesla dismissed relativity because space doesn't bend. He understood reification fallacy is sufficient to invalidate relativity. You don't say why you feel it necessary to suppose any atomic separation. You should study Pentcho Valev's posts. He has recently shown the MMX is easily explained without relativity. I don't know what your problem is. Literal length contraction was quickly discarded by the sensible scientists who first proposed it by about 1890.


kookfight

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web