Prev: correct representation of slower clocks
Next: The Large Hadron Collider could throw up evidence of new physics earlier than expected
From: Pentcho Valev on 26 Jul 2010 11:51
A few years ago Einstein's 1905 false light postulate was about to
crumble - even olympian deities found it profitable to move in that
direction:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
September 09, 2001
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum."

Eventually systematic exercises in crimestop put an end to the heresy
and Einstein's 1905 false light postulate was saved:

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "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."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/
George Orwell "1984": "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise,
but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two
and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the
past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist
only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

In Big Brother's schizophrenic world you are free to replace the
theory predicting that 2+2=5 with a new theory predicting that, say,
2+2=17. However you are not allowed to return to the old theory
predicting that 2+2=4. That would be a crime against the civilization.
Similarly, in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world you are not allowed
to denounce Einstein's 1905 false light postulate (c'=c) and return to
its true alternative given by Newton's emission theory of light - the
equation c'=c+v showing how the speed of light varies with the speed
of the emitter. Our decaying civilization may not be able to withstand
such a blow:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Bryan Wallace: "Einstein's special relativity theory with his second
postulate that the speed of light in space is constant is the linchpin
that holds the whole range of modern physics theories together.
Shatter this postulate, and modern physics becomes an elaborate farce!
(...) The speed of light is c+v."

But you are free to try to replace Einstein's "theory" with an
equivalent or even greater idiocy - that would additionally confuse
scientists' minds and so would strengthen Einsteiniana:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/spiritual-living_b_650940.html
"Did Einstein Set Science Back 100 Years? (...) Einstein's treatment
of space and time as physical objects imparts a completely wrong
starting point for investigations into the nature of reality. (...)
Relativity and biocentrism both predict the same phenomena. It's not
possible to choose one theory over the other based on experiments.
"One must choose relativity over the compensatory [biocentric]
alternatives," wrote Sklar, a leading philosopher of science "as a
matter of free choice." But with biocentrism, there's no need to
invent new dimensions and an entirely new mathematics to explain why
space and time are relative to the observer. (...) Science needs to
restore space and time to their rightful place. They belong to us, not
to the physical world."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Brad Guth on 26 Jul 2010 18:33
On Jul 22, 10:56 pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/ind...
> John Norton: "If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the
> light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the
> resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the
> frequency of the light to have increased (and correspondingly for the
> wavelength--the distance between crests--to have decreased). That
> increase in frequency is a shifting of the light towards the blue end
> of the spectrum. The converse effect would happen if the observer were
> to recede from the light source. The light's frequency would diminish
> and the light would redden. For light, this effect depends only on the
> relative motion of observer and source. So if the observer were at
> rest and the light source moved, exactly the same thing would happen."
>
> John Norton would have produced a revolutionary text if he had not
> used the variable wavelength camouflage. Here is the text without the
> camouflage:
>
> "If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the
> observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting
> observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the
> frequency of the light to have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE
> SPEED OF THE LIGHT RELATIVE TO HIM TO HAVE INCREASED AS WELL). That
> increase in frequency is a shifting of the light towards the blue end
> of the spectrum. The converse effect would happen if the observer were
> to recede from the light source. The light's frequency would diminish
> and the light would redden. For light, this effect depends only on the
> relative motion of observer and source. So if the observer were at
> rest and the light source moved, exactly the same thing would
> happen."
>
> Etherists do not use the variable wavelength camouflage and
> accordingly do produce revolutionary texts from time to time:
>
> http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V17NO1PDF/V17N1GIF.pdf
> Doppler Shift Reveals Light Speed Variation
> Stephan J. G. Gift
> Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
> The University of the West Indies
> "Therefore the observed Doppler Shift or frequency change in the light
> or other electromagnetic radiation resulting from movement of the
> receiver toward the transmitter indicates a change in light speed
> relative to the moving receiver. (...) In conclusion, a change in
> radiation frequency or Doppler Shift occurs when an observer moving at
> speed v much lower than c towards or away from a stationary source
> intercepts electromagnetic waves from that source. This frequency
> change arises because the observer intercepts the electromagnetic
> radiation at a relative speed c ± v that is different from the light
> speed c. Though special relativity predicts the Doppler Shift, this
> light speed variation c ± v occurring in this situation directly
> contradicts the light speed invariance requirement of special
> relativity."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...(a)yahoo.com

With this topic, you're only going to attract mostly rednecks and Jews
that never allow an honest revision of anything, and since it's
impossible;e to change the past, it's equally impossible to change the
future.

According to Einsteinism, while at his ultimate velocity of 'c' (which
is actually kinda slow) a radio transmitted signal would always get to
wherever it was intended, because his photons always exist at the
exact same time and place regardless of their to/from velocity and/or
vector of the transmitter (only their received frequency would be
altered).

In other words, a microwave frequency of 10 GHz as directed at us from
a galaxy 14 billion light years distant and moving away from us at
0.9'c', would be received by us at the frequency of 1 GHz, and if it
were otherwise moving towards us at 0.9'c' would be received as 100
GHz, as well as each supposedly detected at the exact same time as if
having been moving away or toward us at 0.9'c'.

In further review, an expanding universe that's supposedly still
growing its radii at the rate of 'c' has only 0 Hz photons from its
outer most shell or event horizon for us to detect. Unfortunately,
bigger and better telescopes do not seem to support this kind of 0 Hz
Einsteinism. Either that or this universe has gotten way bigger than
anyone can imagine.

~ BG
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: correct representation of slower clocks
Next: The Large Hadron Collider could throw up evidence of new physics earlier than expected