• Einstein Cult: Absolute Dishonesty or Absolute Stupidity?

    From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Wed Feb 23 16:16:40 2022
    Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for it in the theory." http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/
    arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.1234v1.pdf

    Mark Buchanan: "...a photon with mass would not necessarily always travel at the same speed. Feigenbaum's work shows how, contrary to many physicists' beliefs, this need not be a problem for relativity." http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801.500-
    why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity.html

    Jean-Marc Levy-Leblond: "The evidence of the nonzero mass of the photon would not, as such, shake in any way the validity of the special relativity. It would, however, nullify all its derivations which are based on the invariance of the photon velocity."
    http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/One_more_derivation.pdf

    Sabine Hossenfelder: "If photons had a restmass, special relativity would still be as valid as it's always been. The longer answer is that the invariance of the speed of light features prominently in the popular explanations of special relativity for
    historic reasons, not for technical reasons. Einstein was lead to special relativity contemplating what it would be like to travel with light, and then tried to find a way to accommodate an observer's motion with the invariance of the speed of light. But
    the derivation of special relativity is much more general than that, and it is unnecessary to postulate that the speed of light is invariant." http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2016/05/dear-dr-b-if-photons-have-mass-would.html

    Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, dé
    sormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en
    est rien..." http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf

    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 Thu Feb 24 10:43:38 2022
    David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but
    ENOUGH STRANGENESS occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

    So, all along, the traveler sees himself aging FASTER than stationary people, but, during the short turning-around period, "enough strangeness" occurs and all stationary people suddenly get very old:

    "At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. [...] Ah, but in order to return to Earth, the spaceship must slow
    down, stop moving, turn around and go back the other way. During those periods of deceleration and deceleration, it is not an inertial frame and therefore the normal rules of special relativity don't apply. When the twin in the spaceship turns around to
    make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older
    of the two." http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox

    The ideology imposed by the Einstein cult is immeasurably more idiotic than any mass idiocy in human history.

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

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Pentcho Valev on Thu Feb 24 23:59:27 2022
    On Thursday, 24 February 2022 at 18:43:42 UTC, Pentcho Valev wrote:
    David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow,
    but ENOUGH STRANGENESS occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

    So, all along, the traveler sees himself aging FASTER than stationary people, but, during the short turning-around period, "enough strangeness" occurs and all stationary people suddenly get very old:

    "At the same time, the twin in the spaceship considers himself to be the stationary twin, and therefore as he looks back towards Earth he sees his brother ageing more slowly than himself. [...] Ah, but in order to return to Earth, the spaceship must
    slow down, stop moving, turn around and go back the other way. During those periods of deceleration and deceleration, it is not an inertial frame and therefore the normal rules of special relativity don't apply. When the twin in the spaceship turns
    around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is
    the older of the two." http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox

    The ideology imposed by the Einstein cult is immeasurably more idiotic than any mass idiocy in human history.

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

    Pentcho Valev

    Relativists are certainly devious. Because they know that they
    needed to con the gullible physics community into believing that
    constant c in all frames is the only option. The best way was to make wildly incorrect predictions of various phenomena and experiments for the competing classical model. And then say because relativity seemed to correctly predict the
    results, relativity must be the only theory to follow. I’ve already mentioned
    elsewhere how relativists like Ives Stillwell faked the predictions for classical
    theory for their experiment to discredit any non relativistic model. But another
    good example of lies from supporters of relativity is the nonsense from de Sitter
    of light speed in a classical model from a double star system.

    If scientists on earth wanted to calculate and model the speed of light in an earth based experiment, would they do all their speed of light calculations for a light source on earth in a reference frame of a distant star rotating in a
    double star system?
    Of course not. But that’s exactly what the conman de Sitter did. He pretended
    that the speed of light for a distant star in a classical model should be calculated in the earth reference frame!! Even though in fact in the source star frame the earth rotates at high speeds in an eliptical orbit.
    If deSitter had correctly calculated light speeds for a non relativistic
    model he should have done so in the *star source* frame where the earth rotates. Doing it this way keeps the light speed at constant c in the source frame as classical theory mandates. And only when light from the star
    arrives to us in the earth frame is it observed to be at various speeds due to Doppler effects. No light piles up in the star frame as de Sitter pretends. And a non relativistic classical model is proven to not be ruled out as a viable theory by dishonest relativists flogging Special Relativity.

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