Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Einstein knew that originally, prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor, the Michelson-Morley experiment had unequivocally proved Newton's variable speed of light, but "resisted the temptation" to stick to the truth and based his
theory on a feature of the nonexistent ether:

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. If it was so obvious, though,
why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with
emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then
expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

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

Pentcho Valev

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

On Sunday, 28 August 2022 at 23:16:40 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:

Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Einstein knew that originally, prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor, the Michelson-Morley experiment had unequivocally proved Newton's variable speed of light, but "resisted the temptation" to stick to the truth and based

his theory on a feature of the nonexistent ether:

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. If it was so obvious, though,
why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with

emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then
expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

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

Just a word of caution here. Aether, particle emission, photon theories etc were nonsense
theories made up by the same sort of low IQ people who went on to support relativity.
And like relativity these theories ignored the only empirically observed properties
of light.....that light appears to be a wave. And always only travels at c in the source frame.
So what many relativists and emission supporters fail to accept is that emission theory
can also apply to a wave only model of light. And yet still allow the waves to always travel
at c relative to the source. This is because a wave only model of light is based only on
empirical observation. Observations that light is a wave made by the likes of young,fresnel,Huygens. And observations that the vacuum that these waves propagate through does not impede its speed relative to the source. Like MMX and
sagnac.
Not wild erroneous unproven assumptions of imaginary constant speeds in all frames
or unobserved corpuscular particles as seen in SR,QT, Photon and the various Newtonian
corpuscular emission models.
And until critics of Relativity like Pentch, Eric et al realise that photons are fantasies
and Light isn’t a corpuscle they will never be able to come up with a new workable theory of
everything or any viable explanation of how light redshifts in a non expanding universe.
Because the reason why the Big Bang was invented was not just to save Relativity
but also to save Einsteins photon model. Which means to come up with an alternative
non expanding model of the universe that is still consistent with all known empirical
observations of light and matter and the universe....one needs to ditch SR, QT and the
photon.

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

John Norton unwittingly exposes theoretical physicists ("later writers") as liars. They use the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light postulate of special relativity", knowing that this experiment is "fully compatible with an emission
theory of light that contradicts the light postulate":

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that
Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-
Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Understandably, John Norton, a high priest in the Einstein cult, is trying to exonerate Einstein. Actually, Einstein was the author of the Michelson-Morley-experiment hoax - he devised it in 1921:

The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He
sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity
of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a
second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many
famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled?
Professor Einstein asked." https://ebay.com/itm/ALBERT-EINSTEIN-Lecture-on-SPEED-OF-LIGHT-Time-1st-Visit-to-US-1921-Newspaper/373400655156

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

Pentcho Valev

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

Einstein's 1905 second hoax:

Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the
clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and
higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

This argument of Einstein is invalid. The "peculiar consequence" is non sequitur - does not follow from Einstein's 1905 two postulates.

The two postulates of special relativity, true or false, entail this:

Valid deduction: The moving clock lags behind the stationary one AS JUDGED FROM THE STATIONARY SYSTEM, and the stationary clock lags behind the moving one AS JUDGED FROM THE MOVING SYSTEM.

Einstein abused logic in 1905 and "deduced" from the postulates this:

Non sequitur: The moving clock lags behind the stationary one AS JUDGED FROM BOTH SYSTEMS. That is, in the scenario discussed by Einstein, on the arrival of the moving clock at B, all observers, moving or stationary, see that the moving clock shows less
time elapsed.

Why did Einstein abuse logic? Because the valid deduction doesn't, but the non sequitur does imply TIME TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE - the miracle (idiocy) that converted Einstein into a deity:

Thibault Damour: "The paradigm of the special relativistic upheaval of the usual concept of time is the twin paradox. Let us emphasize that this striking example of time dilation proves that time travel (towards the future) is possible. As a gedanken
experiment (if we neglect practicalities such as the technology needed for reaching velocities comparable to the velocity of light, the cost of the fuel and the capacity of the traveller to sustain high accelerations), it shows that a sentient being can
jump, "within a minute" (of his experienced time) arbitrarily far in the future, say sixty million years ahead, and see, and be part of, what (will) happen then on Earth. This is a clear way of realizing that the future "already exists" (as we can
experience it "in a minute")." http://www.bourbaphy.fr/damourtemps.pdf

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

Pentcho Valev

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

Albert Einstein, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, 1905: "From this there ensues the following peculiar consequence. If at the points A and B of K there are stationary clocks which, viewed in the stationary system, are synchronous; and if the
clock at A is moved with the velocity v along the line AB to B, then on its arrival at B the two clocks no longer synchronize, but the clock moved from A to B lags behind the other which has remained at B by tv^2/2c^2 (up to magnitudes of fourth and
higher order), t being the time occupied in the journey from A to B." http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

Why does the stationary clock run FASTER than the moving clock? This is obviously non sequitur - doesn't follow from Einstein 1905 postulates (principle of relativity and constancy of the speed of light).

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

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