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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #432871 > unrolled thread

Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense

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

Contents

  Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-18 23:53 -0700
    Re: Pentcho's Most Obvious Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-19 05:07 -0700
    Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-19 08:26 -0700
      Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense "David (Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-09-19 09:34 -0700
      Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-19 11:11 -0700
        Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-20 10:19 +0000
    Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-19 11:53 -0700
      Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-19 13:22 -0700
    Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-20 00:22 -0700
      Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-20 04:51 -0700
        Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 13:19 -0500
          Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-20 14:02 -0700
            Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense Kos Etrakis <uar@ksskkwi.ck> - 2017-09-20 21:16 +0000
            Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-20 16:55 -0500
              Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-20 20:03 -0700
                Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 09:22 -0500
                  Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-21 11:37 -0700
                    Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense Ned Latham <nedlatham@woden.valhalla.oz> - 2017-09-21 17:00 -0500
          Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-09-21 13:22 +0200
            Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-09-21 04:47 -0700
    Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-21 05:03 -0700
      Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-21 16:20 -0700
    Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-21 17:11 -0700
      Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-09-22 13:47 -0700
    Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense gehan.ameresekere@gmail.com - 2017-09-21 23:16 -0700
    Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-23 12:28 -0700
    Re: Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-09-23 12:32 -0700

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#432871 — Einstein's Most Obvious Nonsense

Einstein's most obvious nonsense is undoubtedly his conclusion that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer, a direct consequence of his 1905 postulates. The observer starts moving towards the light source, the wavecrests start hitting him more frequently (the frequency he measures increases), and yet the speed of the wavecrests relative to the observer idiotically remains the same:

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."  http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm 

Updated 2014 by Don Koks.  Original by Steve Carlip (1997) and Philip Gibbs 1996: "To state that the speed of light is independent of the velocity of the observer is very counterintuitive.  Some people even refuse to accept this as a logically consistent possibility, but in 1905 Einstein was able to show that it is perfectly consistent if you are prepared to give up assumptions about the absolute nature of space and time."  http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html 

So Einstein "wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair", but in the end found it suitable to introduce the nonsense. However the nonsense naturally proved inconsistent with reality, and Einstein partially restored consistency by converting space and time, too, into nonsense:

Peter Galison: "Only by criticizing the foundational notions of time and space could one bring the pieces of the theory - that the laws of physics were the same in all constantly moving frames; that light traveled at the same speed regardless of its source - into harmony." 
 https://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/einstein/essay-einsteins-time.htm 

"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."  http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/ 

The most obvious nonsense (speed of light independent of motion of observer) is the first heavy blow on physics students's rationality: 

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." 
 http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm 

Joe Wolfe and other brainwashers will continue to teach nonsense, loudly and repeatedly - in the end students will become indistinguishable from Bingo the Clowno: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX5ajyPr96M 
 Bingo the Clowno 

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#432880 — Re: Pentcho's Most Obvious Nonsense

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 12:53:53 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Einstein's most obvious nonsense is undoubtedly his conclusion that the
> speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer,

Too bad that Postulating Pentcho is totally ignorant of the experimental
evidence which refutes his nonsensical assertions.

> a direct consequence of his 1905 postulates.

Actually, it IS one of his postulates.

> [Regurgitated baloney and misunderstood quotations deleted]

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

#432917

The fact that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer is as obvious as 2+2=4 (Einstein's nonsensical conclusion that it doesn't is equivalent to Big Brother's 2+2=5):

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php 
 "Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE 
 "Doppler effect - when an observer moves toward a stationary source. When an observer moves toward a stationary source, the period of the wave emitted by a source is shorter and the observed frequency is higher. Because the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

All relevant experiments, if performed and interpreted correctly, confirm the variable speed of light posited by Newton's emission theory of light and refute the constant speed of light posited by Einstein's relativity. Even if the interpretation comes from the headquarters of Einstein cult, if it is correct, Einstein's relativity is (inadvertently) refuted: 

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler 
 Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. [...] Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source: 

Stationary receiver:  http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif 

Moving receiver:  http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif 

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses."  [END OF QUOTATION] 

"Four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses" means that the speed of the pulses relative to the moving receiver is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity. 

Pentcho Valev

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

#432924

Pencho AutoPostingBot Turd 💩

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

#432938

On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 9:26:49 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> The fact that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer is

not a fact.  It is a delusion of Poopy Pentcho.

> as obvious as 2+2=4 (Einstein's nonsensical conclusion that it doesn't is
> equivalent to Big Brother's 2+2=5):

Pentcho's conclusion is worse than nonsensical because it is wrong.

Conclusions that are refuted by reality are a dime a dozen around here.

> [Misinterpreted quotations are bull plop and deserve to be deleted]

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

#433015

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 19, 2017 at 9:26:49 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>
>> The fact that the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer
>> is
> 
> not a fact.  It is a delusion of Poopy Pentcho.

This is absolutely obscene.

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

#432942

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 11:53:53 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Einstein's most obvious nonsense is undoubtedly his conclusion that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer,

Learn the subject before attempting to post critiques. The above is
not even wrong, a total waste of your time.

--
Jan

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

#432954

W dniu wtorek, 19 września 2017 20:53:11 UTC+2 użytkownik JanPB napisał:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 11:53:53 PM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > Einstein's most obvious nonsense is undoubtedly his conclusion that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer,
> 
> Learn the subject before attempting to post critiques. The above is
> not even wrong, a total waste of your time.

And, of course, syntax schmyntax.

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

#432996

Wikipedia: "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Since c' = c ± v (the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter) was "explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887", then perhaps the antithesis, c' = c (the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter), was contradicting those results?

This is a question without an answer in Einstein's schizophrenic world. Too dangerous to even think of it:

"Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."  http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter2.9.html 

Pentcho Valev

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

#433024

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 1:22:41 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Wikipedia: "Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory
> of light, blah, blah, blah.
> 
> Since c' = c ± v (the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter)

No, it does not.  Emission theory is refuted by all experimental evidence.

> was "explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887",
> then perhaps the antithesis, c' = c (the speed of light is independent of
> the speed of the emitter), was contradicting those results?

Nope.  Both theories are consistent with the MMX.

> This is a question without an answer in Einstein's schizophrenic world.

There is no "question" except the one about why Prevaricating Pentcho posts
poop.

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

#433065

Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote:
>
> Emission theory is refuted by all experimental evidence.

False. There are *interpretations* that contradict it; there
is no *evidence* that does so,

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

#433096

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 12:19:22 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
>
> Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote:
> >
> > Emission theory is refuted by all experimental evidence.
> 
> False. There are *interpretations* that contradict it;

Correct interpretations of experimental evidence refute Emission theory,
false interpretations abound mostly in places frequented by crackpots,
kooks and the mentally-challenged.

> there is no *evidence* that does so,

Says the mentally-challenged, dishonest troll.

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

#433098

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> > Emission theory is refuted by all experimental evidence.
>> 
>> False. There are *interpretations* that contradict it;
> 
> Correct interpretations of experimental evidence refute Emission theory,
> false interpretations abound mostly in places frequented by crackpots,
> kooks and the mentally-challenged.

There are only two ways to interpret an experiment in a laboratory. A one 
when the an okay setup outputs nonsense, then the other when the output is 
okay, but nobody knows why. The latter is the case routinely.

To summarize, an expected output, from the first try, is the worst to get 
in science and engineering. That's the main reason why that moon landing 
probably never happened.

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

#433101

Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote:
> > >
> > > Emission theory is refuted by all experimental evidence.
> >
> > False. There are *interpretations* that contradict it;
>
> Correct interpretations of experimental evidence refute Emission theory,

False.

> false interpretations abound mostly in places frequented by crackpots,
> kooks and the mentally-challenged.

IOW, your hangouts.

Not interested, boofhead.

> > there is no *evidence* that does so,
>
> Says the mentally-challenged, dishonest troll.

You wouldn't know, Fuck Knuckle. Yopu're a liar and a moron.
Oh, and look up the words "refute" and "troll", you moron.

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

#433128

On Wednesday, September 20, 2017 at 3:55:51 PM UTC-6, Ned Latham wrote:
>
> Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote:

Only a stupid degenerate troll would write that attribution.

> > Know-Nothing Ned wrote:
> > >
> > > Gary wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Emission theory is refuted by all experimental evidence.
> > >
> > > False. There are *interpretations* that contradict it;
> >
> > Correct interpretations of experimental evidence refute Emission theory,
> 
> False.

Nope.  Only a lying degenerate infantile crackpot would claim that.

> > false interpretations abound mostly in places frequented by crackpots,
> > kooks and the mentally-challenged.
> 
> IOW, your hangouts.

Yours to, degenerate troll.

> Not interested, boofhead.

Glad to hear that you're giving up your abysmally-stupid rampages.

> > > there is no *evidence* that does so,
> >
> > Says the mentally-challenged, dishonest troll.
> 
> You wouldn't know,

But I do know, Know-Nothing Ned.

> Fuck Knuckle.

There's nobody here by that name, unless it's you.

> Yopu're a liar and a moron.

Which proves that YOU are the liar and moron, projecting one.

> Oh, and look up the words "refute" and "troll", you moron.

I know what they mean.  You are in denial of your true self.  Now go
back under your bridge and continue to deny reality.

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

#433183

Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote:
> > >
> > > Emission theory is refuted by all experimental evidence.
> >
> > False. There are *interpretations* that contradict it;
>
> Correct interpretations of experimental evidence refute Emission
> theory,

False.

> false interpretations abound mostly in places frequented by crackpots,
> kooks and the mentally-challenged.

IOW, your hangouts.

Not interested, boofhead.

> > there is no *evidence* that does so,
>
> Says the mentally-challenged, dishonest troll.

You wouldn't know, Fuck Knuckle. Yopu're a liar and a moron.
Oh, and look up the words "refute" and "troll", you moron.

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

#433204

On Thursday, September 21, 2017 at 8:22:55 AM UTC-6, Know-Nothing Ned (A.K.A. Loser Latham wrote:
>
> [Lies, denigrations and proofs that he is a degenerate troll]

And, of course, an ignoramus.

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

#433246

Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote:
> > >
> > > Emission theory is refuted by all experimental evidence.
> >
> > False. There are *interpretations* that contradict it;
>
> Correct interpretations of experimental evidence refute Emission
> theory,

False.

> false interpretations abound mostly in places frequented by crackpots,
> kooks and the mentally-challenged.

IOW, your hangouts.

Not interested, boofhead.

> > there is no *evidence* that does so,
>
> Says the mentally-challenged, dishonest troll.

You wouldn't know, Fuck Knuckle. Yopu're a liar and a moron.
Oh, and look up the words "refute" and "troll", you moron.

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

#433160

Den 20.09.2017 20.19, skrev Ned Latham:
> Gawy Fuck Knuckle wrote:
>>
>> Emission theory is refuted by all experimental evidence.
> 
> False. There are *interpretations* that contradict it; there
> is no *evidence* that does so,
> 

To test a theory, you must:
- Calculate what the theory predicts will be measured
   (a number) in a specific experiment.
- Compare the numbers which are measured in the experiment
   with the numbers that are predicted by the theory.
- If the predicted numbers are different from the measured
   numbers by more than the uncertainty of the measurements,
   then the theory is falsified.

All theories which are based on that the speed of light
is c relative to the source, and that the speed of light
transforms according to the Galilean transform are falsified
by these experiments:

https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1913.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf
(and by a lot of other experiments as well)

The predictions of theories of the class stated
above are different from the measurements in
all these cases.

There is no way you can 'interpret' the measured
numbers to be equal to predicted numbers.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

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

#433162

W dniu czwartek, 21 września 2017 13:22:14 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał:

> To test a theory, you must:
> - Calculate what the theory predicts will be measured
>    (a number) in a specific experiment.
> - Compare the numbers which are measured in the experiment
>    with the numbers that are predicted by the theory.
> - If the predicted numbers are different from the measured
>    numbers by more than the uncertainty of the measurements,
>    then the theory is falsified.

Of course, when measurements deny a theory that is 
obviously right (liker The Shit of magnificient
Einstein for instance) - their uncertainty rise 
infinitely.

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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

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

csiph-web