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

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #463407 > unrolled thread

Any Relevant Experiment Falsifies Einstein's Relativity

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

Contents

  Any Relevant Experiment Falsifies Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-04 01:56 -0700
    Re: Any Relevant Experiment Falsifies Einstein's Relativity Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-04 10:23 +0000
    Re: Any Relevant Experiment Falsifies Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-04 05:00 -0700
    Re: Any Relevant Experiment Falsifies Einstein's Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-04 07:08 -0700
      Re: Any Relevant Experiment Falsifies Einstein's Relativity mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2018-07-05 02:16 -0700
        Re: Any Relevant Experiment Falsifies Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-05 07:29 -0700
    Re: Any Relevant Experiment Falsifies Einstein's Relativity Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-05 01:29 -0700
      Re: Any Relevant Experiment Falsifies Einstein's Relativity Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2018-07-05 07:26 -0700
        Re: Any Relevant Experiment Falsifies Einstein's Relativity Oren Woodcock <uw@osiweoq.lp> - 2018-07-05 21:31 +0000
      Re: Any Relevant Experiment Falsifies Einstein's Relativity JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2018-07-05 14:41 -0700
    Re: Any Relevant Experiment Falsifies Einstein's Relativity Alan Folmsbee <omnilobe@gmail.com> - 2018-07-07 12:33 -0700

#463407 — Any Relevant Experiment Falsifies Einstein's Relativity

Any relevant experiment (Michelson-Morley, Pound-Rebka, Doppler measurements), if correctly interpreted, falsifies Einstein's relativity. However this "theory" is an ideology, not a science, and as such overcomes all falsifications:

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. [...] The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the variable speed of light posited by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate:

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."   http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf 

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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."  https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

In a gravitational field light falls with the same acceleration as ordinary bodies. This (Newtonian) acceleration is incompatible with gravitational time dilation. That is, if light does fall in this way, gravitational time dilation

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhNgGtgWsAUlSHF.jpg

does not exist and Einstein's general relativity is absurd. 

The Newtonian acceleration of light in a gravitational field has been unequivocally proved by the Pound-Rebka experiment: 

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight."  http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf 

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."  https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html 

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."  http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html

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://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 (observer) is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#463409

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Any relevant experiment (Michelson-Morley, Pound-Rebka, Doppler
> measurements), if correctly interpreted, falsifies Einstein's
> relativity. However this "theory" is an ideology, not a science, and as
> such overcomes all falsifications:

This is not true. Once you accept an _internal structure_ added to the 
domain of _spacetime_, Dr. Einstine's theory of relativity is _not_ 
falsifiable.

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

#463412

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 2:56:02 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev regurgitated:
>
> Any relevant experiment (Michelson-Morley, Pound-Rebka, Doppler
> measurements), if correctly interpreted, falsifies Einstein's relativity.

Any relevant experiment, if misinterpreted by an imbecile, shows that
said imbecile should be pitied for his lack of a functioning brain.

> However this "theory" is an ideology, not a science, and as such overcomes
> all falsifications:
>
> https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399

And quoting another imbecile only adds to the stupidity.

> In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the
> variable speed of light posited by Newton's emission theory of light
> and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source)
> speed of light posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein
> as his 1905 second postulate:
> 
> John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an
> emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
>   http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf 

Norton is correct, but Perplexed Pentcho (as usual) misinterprets him.

> [Rest of regurgitated misinterpretations deleted to prevent undo wear
on communication electrons]

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

#463420

On Wednesday, July 4, 2018 at 1:56:02 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Any relevant experiment (Michelson-Morley, Pound-Rebka, Doppler measurements), if correctly interpreted, falsifies Einstein's relativity.

No, it doesn't: see e.g.:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html 
https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2014-4 

So Pentcho, you have to work at least as hard to justify your inane claims. A short Internet
post consisting mostly of some random quotes isn't going to cut it.

> However this "theory" is an ideology, not a science,

Again, false. Your problem is you never studied physics with any understanding so you
don't know what went on before relativity. This allows you to focus solely on some trivial
points of the theory and "work" with them any way you please, without ever noticing the
massive contradictions you are creating by doing so. Ignorance is bliss as they say.

> and as such overcomes all falsifications:

Nonsense. You have a lot to learn. BTW, in general, you should have KNOWN that you
DIDN'T KNOW enough to post ANY technical critiques of the theory. The fact that you
_don't know that you don't know_ is in itself interesting but, sadly, typical of the ignorant
wannabes. It seems arrogance is one of THE standard features of ignorance.

--
Jan

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

#463478

On Wednesday, 4 July 2018 16:08:44 UTC+2, JanPB  wrote:

> Nonsense. You have a lot to learn. BTW, in general, you should have KNOWN that you
> DIDN'T KNOW enough to post ANY technical critiques of the theory. The fact that you
> _don't know that you don't know_ is in itself interesting but, sadly, typical of the ignorant
> wannabes. It seems arrogance is one of THE standard features of ignorance.

Jan, poor idiot, your pathetic mumble about the abilities
of imagined ants is no way technical.

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

#463488

On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 3:16:55 AM UTC-6, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, 4 July 2018 16:08:44 UTC+2, JanPB  wrote:
> >
> > Nonsense. You have a lot to learn. BTW, in general, you should have
> > KNOWN that you DIDN'T KNOW enough to post ANY technical critiques of
> > the theory. The fact that you _don't know that you don't know_ is in
> > itself interesting but, sadly, typical of the ignorant wannabes.
> > It seems arrogance is one of THE standard features of ignorance.

Another sad, sad case:

> Jan, poor idiot, your pathetic mumble about the abilities
> of imagined ants is no way technical.

Wozzie-boy, poor imbecile, your pathetic yammering is neither technical
nor accurate.

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

#463477

The Doppler frequency shift OBVIOUSLY falsifies Einstein's relativity:

Stationary light source; moving receiver:  http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif 

Frequency measured by the source: f; by the moving receiver: f' > f. 

Speed of pulses relative to the source: c = df (d is distance between pulses). 

Speed of pulses relative to the moving receiver: 

c' = df' > c 

in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Physicists obey Loyola's principle. They clearly see that both the frequency and the speed of the light pulses VARY for the moving observer in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

but believe that only the frequency varies - the speed of the pulses gloriously remains unchanged.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhM-KmwWkAABSdq.jpg

Pentcho Valev

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

#463487

On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:29:38 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev regurgitated:
>
> The Doppler frequency shift OBVIOUSLY falsifies Einstein's relativity:

Dead wrong the first time Prevaricating Pentcho posted this bull plop,
and it's STILL wrong.

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

#463555

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 2:29:38 AM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev
> regurgitated:
>>
>> The Doppler frequency shift OBVIOUSLY falsifies Einstein's relativity:
> 
> Dead wrong the first time Prevaricating Pentcho posted this bull plop,
> and it's STILL wrong.

Then you have to choose, amigo, between having a light which behaves 
CONSTANT along it journey along the space, or, conversely, not letting 
light behave constant. You can't have both.

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

#463559

On Thursday, July 5, 2018 at 1:29:38 AM UTC-7, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The Doppler frequency shift OBVIOUSLY falsifies Einstein's relativity:
> 
> Stationary light source; moving receiver:  http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif 
> 
> Frequency measured by the source: f; by the moving receiver: f' > f. 
> 
> Speed of pulses relative to the source: c = df (d is distance between pulses). 
> 
> Speed of pulses relative to the moving receiver: 
> 
> c' = df' > c 
> 
> in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Why don't you publish this brilliant finding of yours and collect the
Nobel prize which would INEVITABLY follow if you were correct? Why waste
your time typing this here?

I told you this before:

(1) write it all up nicely in TeX using the standard arxiv templates,

(2) send to arxiv for publication. If you have problems pushing it through,
e-mail me and I'll check it out and see if I can help,

(3) enjoy the resulting fame and fortune.

Let me now address the sane, normal people now: what Pentcho wrote above
is silly, it was debunked literally DOZENS of time here over the YEARS (he
has been posting the same thing over and over for years). If anyone is
TRULY interested in the experimental basis for relativity so far, go to
those two links for starters:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2014-4 
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html 

This is the sort of thing any refutation of relativity has to deal with,
not a 10-liner of ASCII text by a resident forum idiot.

--
Jan

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

#463744

On Tuesday, July 3, 2018 at 10:56:02 PM UTC-10, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Any relevant experiment (Michelson-Morley, Pound-Rebka, Doppler measurements), if correctly interpreted, falsifies Einstein's relativity. However this "theory" is an ideology, not a science, and as such overcomes all falsifications:
> 
> "This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful. [...] The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse. [...] The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox  https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399
> 
> In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment UNEQUIVOCALLY confirmed the variable speed of light posited by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light posited by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate:
> 
> John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."   http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf 
> 
> Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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."  https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
> 
> In a gravitational field light falls with the same acceleration as ordinary bodies. This (Newtonian) acceleration is incompatible with gravitational time dilation. That is, if light does fall in this way, gravitational time dilation
> 
> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DhNgGtgWsAUlSHF.jpg
> 
> does not exist and Einstein's general relativity is absurd. 
> 
> The Newtonian acceleration of light in a gravitational field has been unequivocally proved by the Pound-Rebka experiment: 
> 
> R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight."  http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf 
> 
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light."  https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html 
> 
> Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."  http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html
> 
> 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://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 (observer) is greater than their speed relative to the source, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
> 
> Pentcho Valev

Superconductivity cannot be handled by any Einsteinian 
lumped functional model. Its algebra is inadequate to deal with
the particle's properties in detail. This falsifies that 
"Nature's Laws find their only natural expression in generally
covariant expressions". A. N. Katti
Alan Folmsbee

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web