1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.ASTRO

  • The Simplest Refutation of Einstein's Relativity

    From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Mon Dec 20 06:25:57 2021
    "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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.
    com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

    That is, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light and, accordingly, incompatible with the constant (independent of
    the speed of the light source) speed of light. But:

    Einstein: "If the speed of light depends even in the least on the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity, including the theory of gravitation, is wrong." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol5-trans/376

    See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Mon Dec 20 14:52:50 2021
    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." https://www.amazon.com/
    Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

    Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein' collaborator, clearly suggests that the Michelson-Morley experiment was incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local
    time, or Lorentz transformations"), and only became compatible after fudge factors ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") were introduced ad hoc.

    An alternative claim that saves Einstein's relativity but is too silly: The Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light both originally ("without recourse to contracting
    lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") and after fudge factors ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") were introduced ad hoc.

    More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Terra Plata@21:1/5 to Pentcho Valev on Mon Dec 20 21:31:07 2021
    On 12/20/21 8:25 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:

    .......

    Einstein: "If the speed of light depends even in the least on the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity, including the theory of gravitation, is wrong." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol5-trans/376

    Relativity and gravitation are lunatic theories believed by most of the
    cult of the astrophysics heliocentric religion.

    If the speed of light is constant then how does light slow down when it
    enters a prism, then speed back up again when it exits the prism?

    It's a rhetorical question. I know there are cult believers who will try
    to offer a lame and baseless conjecture as "scientific fact." Don't
    bother trying to baffle with bullshit.

    There is no mystical force of gravity. The earth has a magnetic torus
    field. In that strong magnetic field are also diamagnetic and
    paramagnetic fields, and electrostatic variance with elevation.

    The electrostatic variance couple with the magnetic waves creates a
    density sink so that material objects fall toward the denser ground plane.

    This is observable and repeatable yet completely ignored by the cult.

    The earth is not a hypersonic spinning ball in an endless vacuum. If
    that were the case, it would be impossible to maintain any atmosphere
    anywhere. Atmosphere next to a infinite vacuum would be siphoned off
    instantly. You can't have gas pressure without a container. Otherwise
    the gas would expand into space with explosive velocity.

    Bug men have wasted their entire lives believing in the propaganda hocus
    pocus show of the heliocentric cult. Mark Twain wrote that it is easier
    to fool someone than it is to convince them they have been fooled.

    The earth is a plane that reaches far further than 12 thousand miles
    from the north pole in all directions. The oceans are held in by the
    Antarctic shoreline the same way any lakeshore contains the lake.

    The celestial objects over your head are not balls of gas or rock. They
    are plasmoid luminaries, exactly as they appear to be. The earth is not rotating. It is motionless. The lights in the sky appear to be moving
    because they are moving.

    The moon does not reflect the light of the sun. This is an unscientific
    lie of the helio cult. The moon is self-emitting.

    We live in the middle of a world-pond surrounded by the Antarctic
    shoreline. Deep across the antarctic ice the plane continues on in
    vastness, with other continents waiting to be discovered. In short, you
    all are imprisoned here because you are blinded by the many lies you
    love to believe.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)