Discussion:
How Experiments Did Not Confirm Einstein's Relativity
(trop ancien pour répondre)
Pentcho Valev
2017-05-23 14:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"There is another obvious possibility, which is called the emitter theory: the light travels at 186,300 miles per second relative to the source of the light. The analogy here is between light emitted by a source and bullets emitted by a machine gun. The bullets come out at a definite speed (called the muzzle velocity) relative to the barrel of the gun. If the gun is mounted on the front of a tank, which is moving forward, and the gun is pointing forward, then relative to the ground the bullets are moving faster than they would if shot from a tank at rest. The simplest way to test the emitter theory of light, then, is to measure the speed of light emitted in the forward direction by a flashlight moving in the forward direction, and see if it exceeds the known speed of light by an amount equal to the speed of the flashlight. Actually, this kind of direct test of the emitter theory only became experimentally feasible in the nineteen-sixties. It is now possible to produce particles, called neutral pions, which decay each one in a little explosion, emitting a flash of light. It is also possible to have these pions moving forward at 185,000 miles per second when they self destruct, and to catch the light emitted in the forward direction, and clock its speed. It is found that, despite the expected boost from being emitted by a very fast source, the light from the little explosions is going forward at the usual speed of 186,300 miles per second. In the last century, the emitter theory was rejected because it was thought the appearance of certain astronomical phenomena, such as double stars, where two stars rotate around each other, would be affected. Those arguments have since been criticized, but the pion test is unambiguous. The definitive experiment was carried out by Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964)." http://tonic.physics.sunysb.edu/~dteaney/F12_mystery/lectures/fowler.pdf

An idiotic assumption is fabricated - that the remnants of the decayed pion move twice as fast - and it is fraudulently suggested that the assumption belongs to the emission theory.

The experiment refutes the idiotic assumption of course, and in Einstein's schizophrenic world this means definitive rejection of Newton's emission theory of light and glorious confirmation of Divine Albert's Divine Theory.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-05-23 15:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"But the fact that you can see cosmic ray muons at all is enough to prove that relativity is real. Think about where these muons are created: high in the upper atmosphere, about 30-to-100 kilometers above Earth's surface. Think about how long a muon lives: about 2.2 microseconds on average. And think about the speed limit of the Universe: the speed of light, or about 300,000 kilometers per second. If you have something moving at the speed of light that only lives 2.2 microseconds, it should make it only 0.66 kilometers before decaying away. With that mean lifetime, less than 1-in-10^50 muons should reach the surface. But in reality, almost all of them make it down. Why? From our point of view (or frame-of-reference), because of time dilation." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/04/27/how-to-prove-einsteins-relativity-for-less-than-100/

The lie here is that the muon "lives 2.2 microseconds" - Einsteinians call this "lifetime of muons at rest". Actually this is the disintegration time of muons that have crashed into the detector at a speed close to the speed of light and are in strong interaction with the molecules of the detector. Comparing this postcatastrophic short amount of time with the lifetime of muons in a vacuum which have not undergone a catastrophe, and declaring that the difference gloriously confirms Einstein's relativity, is possible only in Einstein's schizophrenic world:

http://cosmic.lbl.gov/more/SeanFottrell.pdf
"The lifetime of muons at rest [...] Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay. The amount of time that a muon existed before it reached the detector had no effect on how long it continued to live once it entered the detector. Therefore, the decay times measured by the detector gave an accurate value of the muon's lifetime. After two kinds of noise were subtracted from the data, the results from three data sets yielded an average lifetime of 2.07x 10^(-6)s, in good agreement with the accepted value of 2.20x 10^(-6)s."

http://www.physics.rutgers.edu/ugrad/389/muon/muon-rutgers.pdf
"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-05-24 06:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Blatantly lying Einsteinians: Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century:

http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node98.html
"This discrepancy cannot be accounted for using Newton's formalism. Many ad-hoc fixes were devised (such as assuming there was a certain amount of dust between the Sun and Mercury) but none were consistent with other observations (for example, no evidence of dust was found when the region between Mercury and the Sun was carefully scrutinized). In contrast, Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct."


Steven Weinberg (22:08): "People suspect that if you have a known fact, the theorist will be able to jiggle his theory to get it into agreement. If you know anything about the way Einstein developed General Relativity, that's not true. He did not design his theory to explain that extra little motion of Mercury."

Michel Janssen contradicts Steven Weinberg: Einstein did design his theory to explain that extra little motion of Mercury. Janssen describes endless empirical groping, fudging and fitting until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached:

https://netfiles.umn.edu/users/janss011/home%20page/EBms.pdf
Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."

In a world different from Einstein's schizophrenic world Henry Hill would be a famous scientist:

http://people.com/archive/after-he-said-einstein-was-wrong-physicist-henry-hill-learned-that-fames-benefits-are-relative-vol-18-no-10
"After He Said Einstein Was Wrong, Physicist Henry Hill Learned That Fame's Benefits Are Relative [...] A major proof of Einstein's theory involved a peculiarity in the planet Mercury's orbit, which he attributed to the distortion of space created by the great mass of the sun. Central to the proof was an assumption that the sun is perfectly spherical. But Hill's observations showed that the sun is not perfectly round, a discrepancy that Hill has said may be "Achilles tendon of the general theory."

In Einstein's schizophrenic world people like Henry Hill become unpersons:

http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/o/orwell/george/o79n/chapter1.4.html
"Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-05-24 07:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In physics, the post-truth era started in 1919:

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html
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://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919. Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einstein's death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action."

http://www.reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/aarch/pages/10-soddy-to-nobel-prizewinners.htm
Frederick Soddy: "Incidentally the attempt to verify this during a recent solar eclipse, provided the world with the most disgusting spectacle perhaps ever witnessed of the lengths to which a preconceived notion can bias what was supposed to be an impartial scientific inquiry. For Eddington, who was one of the party, and ought to have been excluded as an ardent supporter of the theory that was under examination, in his description spoke of the feeling of dismay which ran through the expedition when it appeared at one time that Einstein might be wrong! Remembering that in this particular astronomical investigation, the corrections for the normal errors of observation - due to diffraction, temperature changes, and the like - exceeded by many times the magnitude of the predicted deflection of the star's ray being looked for, one wonders exactly what this sort of "science" is really worth."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert: "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity."

http://www.epubsbook.com/books/2203_7.html
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."


Brian Greene (6:47) "Eddington's data, with a little bit of massaging, seemed to show that Einstein's ideas were correct."

In 1919 Arthur Eddington was a solitary fraudster but a few years later he was already a gang boss:

http://puritanreformed.blogspot.bg/2010/08/fallible-nature-of-supposed-objective.html
"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger – 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H
"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. [...] ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... [...] In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... [...] ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. [...] More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second."

http://doczz.fr/doc/1099385/pdf--1.4-mo---cea-irfu
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées. [...] Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson, en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même, le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20 km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique, le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s, et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat, pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington, l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée."

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-05-24 21:25:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Does the speed of light depend on the speed of its source? Before formulating his theory of special relativity, Albert Einstein spent a few years trying to formulate a theory in which the speed of light depends on its source, just like all material projectiles. Likewise, Walter Ritz outlined such a theory, where none of the peculiar effects of Einstein's relativity would hold. By 1913 most physicists abandoned such efforts, accepting the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. Yet five decades later all the evidence that had been said to prove that the speed of light is independent of its source had been found to be defective." http://www.martinezwritings.com/m/Relativity.html

Why did physicists abandon Ritz's theory in 1913? Because a fraudster convinced them to do so:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment
"The de Sitter effect was described by de Sitter in 1913 and used to support the special theory of relativity against a competing 1908 emission theory by Walter Ritz that postulated a variable speed of light. De Sitter showed that Ritz's theory predicted that the orbits of binary stars would appear more eccentric than consistent with experiment and with the laws of mechanics, however, the experimental result was negative. This was confirmed by Brecher in 1977 by observing the x-rays spectrum."

Here is Brecher's paper:

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Brecher-K-1977.pdf
K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?"

Brecher (originally de Sitter) calculates "peculiar effects" that would be produced by an idealized system with no specific parameters if the emission theory is correct. Naturally, real double star systems with mostly unknown parameters do not obey and do not produce the "peculiar effects". Brecher's conclusion: Ritz's emission theory (more precisely, the assumption that the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter) is unequivocally refuted, and accordingly Divine Albert's Divine Theory is gloriously confirmed.

Refutations and confirmations of this kind can only be valid in Einstein's schizophrenic world. Note that they cannot be criticized - the fact that the parameters of the double star system are mostly unknown prevents critics from showing why exactly the "peculiar effects" are absent.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-05-25 06:56:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The GPS fraud:

One calculates the distance between the satellite and the receiver by multiplying the time by Einstein's constant speed of light, obtains a wrong value (because the speed of light is variable, not constant), "adjusts the time" in order to fix the wrongness, and finally Einsteinians inform the gullible world that Einstein's relativity (time dilation) is gloriously confirmed:

http://www.wired.com/2011/06/st_equation_gps/
"Your GPS unit registers the exact time at which it receives that information from each satellite and then calculates how long it took for the individual signals to arrive. By multiplying the elapsed time by the speed of light, it can figure out how far it is from each satellite, compare those distances, and calculate its own position. [...] According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, a clock that's traveling fast will appear to run slowly from the perspective of someone standing still. Satellites move at about 9,000 mph - enough to make their onboard clocks slow down by 8 microseconds per day from the perspective of a GPS gadget and totally screw up the location data. To counter this effect, the GPS system adjusts the time it gets from the satellites by using the equation here. (Don't even get us started on the impact of general relativity.)"


GPS & Relativity

Pentcho Valev

Loading...