ETHERISTS LESS INSANE THAN EINSTEINIANS
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 17 May 2010 01:34 "Pentcho Valev" <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c6c1e008-ba2d-4738-9c3a-020f9d933756(a)q8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com... > Initially, etherists' belief that the speed of light is independent of > the speed of the emitter was wrong but not insane: after all, the > speed of all other waves does NOT depend on the speed of the emitter. > The wrong belief became insane when the Michelson-Morley experiment > clearly showed that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the > emitter No .. it didn't. Though it is consistent with that. > and etherists started procrusteanizing the reality > (introducing length contraction etc.) in order to somehow vindicate > the wrong belief. Yes they did > Etherists have always been sane in their true belief that that the > speed of light does depend on the speed of the OBSERVER whereas > Einsteinians, in order to camouflage this almost obvious fact, Except it is NOT a fact. You calling it one is a lie. > have > introduced one of the most idiotic statements in the history of > science: the WAVELENGTH varies with the speed of the observer (so that > the speed of light could remain constant). But wavelength varying is a FACT. Your denial of it is a lie > In this sense etherists are less insane than Einsteinians and have the > right to publish verdicts like these ones: A liar like you should have no rights to publish anything [snip rest unread]
From: Pentcho Valev on 18 May 2010 01:19 Science education producing believers: http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins_pathway/index.html John Norton: "We know from later recollections what one of Einstein's modified versions of electrodynamics looked like. In that version, the velocity of light is a constant, not with respect to the ether, but with respect to the source that emits the light. Such a theory is called an "emission" theory of light and, if the other parts of the theory are well behaved, will satisfy the principle of relativity. (...) In Maxwell's theory, all electrodynamic action, generated by a source charge at some moment, propagates at c from the fixed point in the ether occupied by the source at that moment. In a Ritz-style emission theory, all electrodynamic action, generated by a moving source, propagates at c from a point that moves at uniform velocity with the source. (...) It was a lovely theory. But it didn't work. We can only guess what the problems were. But we know he found many. Indeed Einstein seems to have expended considerable energy trying to figure out if any emission theory might work. His later recollections are littered with different reasons for why no emission theory at all could do justice to electrodynamics." What John Norton "forgets" to teach is that both Maxwell's theory and Newton's emission theory of light predict that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer whereas Divine Albert's Divine Special Relativity has replaced this almost obvious fact with the idiotic statement that it is the WAVELENGTH that varies with the speed of the observer (see below). As for "But it didn't work. We can only guess what the problems were. But we know he found many", remember Ignatius of Loyola's principle: Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may in all things attain the truth, that we may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it a fixed principle, that what I see white I believe to be black if the Romish Church define it so to be" Pentcho Valev wrote: Initially, etherists' belief that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter was wrong but not insane: after all, the speed of all other waves does NOT depend on the speed of the emitter. The wrong belief became insane when the Michelson-Morley experiment clearly showed that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the emitter and etherists started procrusteanizing the reality (introducing length contraction etc.) in order to somehow vindicate the wrong belief. Etherists have always been sane in their true belief that that the speed of light does depend on the speed of the OBSERVER whereas Einsteinians, in order to camouflage this almost obvious fact, have introduced one of the most idiotic statements in the history of science: the WAVELENGTH varies with the speed of the observer (so that the speed of light could remain constant). In this sense etherists are less insane than Einsteinians and have the right to publish verdicts like these ones: http://allais.maurice.free.fr/Paradoxe.htm Maurice Allais: "De là a résulté une incroyable situation sans aucun précédent dans toute l'histoire : la domination dogmatique et intolérante pendant un siècle d'une théorie fausse, la Théorie de la Relativité, résultant elle-même du plagiat indiscutable d'une incontestable erreur. Les conséquences néfastes qui en ont résulté pour la science ont été incalculables, l'orientation totale pendant un siècle de la science dans une voie erronée, et une régression de la pensée scientifique qui n 'a cessé de constituer un obstacle insurmontable sur la voie du progrès." http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Simultaneity-Routledge-Contemporary-Philosophy/dp/0415701740 Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity (Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy) "Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity is an anthology of original essays by an international team of leading philosophers and physicists who, on the centenary of Albert Einsteins Special Theory of Relativity, come together in this volume to reassess the contemporary paradigm of the relativistic concept of time. A great deal has changed since 1905 when Einstein proposed his Special Theory of Relativity, and this book offers a fresh reassessment of Special Relativitys relativistic concept of time in terms of epistemology, metaphysics and physics. There is no other book like this available; hence philosophers and scientists across the world will welcome its publication." "UNFORTUNATELY FOR EINSTEIN'S SPECIAL RELATIVITY, HOWEVER, ITS EPISTEMOLOGICAL AND ONTOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOW SEEN TO BE QUESTIONABLE, UNJUSTIFIED, FALSE, PERHAPS EVEN ILLOGICAL." Craig Callender: "In my opinion, by far the best way for the tenser to respond to Putnam et al is to adopt the Lorentz 1915 interpretation of time dilation and Fitzgerald contraction. Lorentz attributed these effects (and hence the famous null results regarding an aether) to the Lorentz invariance of the dynamical laws governing matter and radiation, not to spacetime structure. On this view, Lorentz invariance is not a spacetime symmetry but a dynamical symmetry, and the special relativistic effects of dilation and contraction are not purely kinematical. The background spacetime is Newtonian or neo- Newtonian, not Minkowskian. Both Newtonian and neo-Newtonian spacetime include a global absolute simultaneity among their invariant structures (with Newtonian spacetime singling out one of neo-Newtonian spacetimes many preferred inertial frames as the rest frame). On this picture, there is no relativity of simultaneity and spacetime is uniquely decomposable into space and time." ETHERISTS: http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/sgift/special_relativity.pdf The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics Stephan J.G. Gift "The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the speed of light is constant and independent of the motion of the source and the observer, is shown to be invalid. (...) For a stationary observer O, the stationary light source S emits light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given by Fo=c/Lo. If the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again based on classical analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving observer is (c + v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light propagation. Hence the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a frequency fA, which is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by fA = (c+v)/Lo > Fo. (...) In light of this elementary result invalidating STR, it is difficult to understand why this invalid theory has been (and continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years. It is time to reject STR with its incorrect light speed invariance principle long pointed out by Ives, and return to the Lorentz-Maxwell ether-based theory elucidated by Ives and summarized by Erlichson." EINSTEINIANS: http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html "Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide. The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang/index.html John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. 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)." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Androcles on 20 May 2010 19:20 "Henry Wilson DSc" <..@..> wrote in message news:befbv5thrct3b2ns9fvi4gjbhfd0c19kh5(a)4ax.com... | On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:19:07 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev <pvalev(a)yahoo.com> | wrote: | Anyone with even half a brain should realise that the distance between water | wave crests is not dependent on the speed of one's boat. Bwhahahahahahaha! If a man walks out to sea from the shore, anyone with even half a brain should realise that the distance between one crest and the next crest is less than if he stood still, IN HIS FRAME OF REFERENCE. You don't have even half a brain and still don't understand frames of reference, you stupid old ozzie sheep shagger.
From: Paul B. Andersen on 21 May 2010 06:53 On 21.05.2010 01:20, Androcles wrote: > "Henry Wilson DSc"<..@..> wrote in message > news:befbv5thrct3b2ns9fvi4gjbhfd0c19kh5(a)4ax.com... > | On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:19:07 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev<pvalev(a)yahoo.com> > | wrote: > | Anyone with even half a brain should realise that the distance between > water > | wave crests is not dependent on the speed of one's boat. > > Bwhahahahahahaha! > If a man walks out to sea from the shore, anyone with even half a brain > should > realise that the distance between one crest and the next crest is less than > if he > stood still, IN HIS FRAME OF REFERENCE. You don't have even half a > brain and still don't understand frames of reference, you stupid old ozzie > sheep > shagger. > > Ralph, you won't miss this opportunity, will you? :-) -- Paul http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/
From: Jerry on 21 May 2010 08:30
On May 21, 5:53 am, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.ander...(a)somewhere.no> wrote: > On 21.05.2010 01:20, Androcles wrote: > > "Henry Wilson DSc"<..@..> wrote in message > >news:befbv5thrct3b2ns9fvi4gjbhfd0c19kh5(a)4ax.com... > > | On Mon, 17 May 2010 22:19:07 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev<pva...(a)yahoo.com> > > | wrote: > > | Anyone with even half a brain should realise that the distance between > > water > > | wave crests is not dependent on the speed of one's boat. > > > Bwhahahahahahaha! > > If a man walks out to sea from the shore, anyone with even half a brain > > should > > realise that the distance between one crest and the next crest is less than > > if he > > stood still, IN HIS FRAME OF REFERENCE. You don't have even half a > > brain and still don't understand frames of reference, you stupid old ozzie > > sheep > > shagger. > > Ralph, you won't miss this opportunity, will you? :-) Wonder if Pentcho will get out of post-only mode and join in? It would be a VERY interesting discussion between the three.... Jerry |