« Schauberger Q and A - Making the Data Available | Main | Ripple Pay - Open Source Cashless Payment System »


PrintPrinter-friendly version


Relativity Fraud: The Complicity of Historians and Philosophers

einstein.jpg

Although Einstein's relativity has taken the world by storm, there have been - for a decade or so - an increasing number of voices that pointed out all is not well in the relative world of physics.

Italian professor of mathematics Umberto Bartocci has collected and made available some of those criticisms on his site and in his publication "Episteme". Gene Mallove, founder of "Infinite Energy" magazine has produced a whole issue on Einstein and the myth of relativity before his tragic death by assassination. Here is Mallove's editorial "The Einstein Myths— Of Space, Time, and Aether". A discussion of Einstein and the implications of his theories can also be found on my other site (Health Supreme) under the title "New Physics: Debating Einstein, Matter, Time and Space".

Jim Hodges from Australia has sent me another contribution to the discussion. He examines the responsibilities of historians and philosophers of science in what appears to be a major re-direct of our scientific endeavors into a blind alley that seems to be leading nowhere in terms of a real understanding of the universe.

Let me add here that I realize that there are many Einstein critics, and even though I have heard from many of you before, I could not necessarily include you all in this short introduction to the Jim Hodges article. There is a facility at the end of this page to leave a comment, perhaps linking your own site or some place where your views can be accessed, if any of you desire to do so.

- - -

THE COMPLICITY OF HISTORIANS AND PHILOSOPHERS IN THE RELATIVITY FRAUD


Jim Hodges


Jim Hodges’ serious interest in fundamental physics began in 1994 when he realized that a dissident physicist correspondent was correct in his contention that special relativity is the manifestation of a serious scientific and cultural scandal. Jim is a member of ISAA, the Ether Drift Club, the Natural Philosophy Alliance, and the Australian Institute of Physics.

One hundred and three years ago a radical new theory of physics emerged in Europe. This was a legitimate theory but was disliked by physicists because it implied that the universe is the result of benevolent design. Five years later there arose a fraudulent version of the legitimate theory which eliminated the spookiness yet was observationally identical to the legitimate theory. Physicists championed the fraudulent version, and historians and philosophers of science rallied to the cause with a false history of physics to fool the masses, and a false philosophy of science to fool themselves.

The origin of the relativity fraud

The story began with five startling new insights about the nature of things:   

   In 1818, Fresnel, a French engineer, used experiments with polarized light to infer that light is a shear wave in a solid elastic medium[1].

   In 1873, Maxwell, a Scottish physicist, used electromagnetic theory to infer that this medium encompasses the universe[2], and because of its high rigidity, conveys the shear waves at 300 000 km/sec.

   In 1889, Fitzgerald, an Irish theorist, showed by analysis that the charged particles in solid matter bunch up in their direction of motion through the electromagnetic medium[3].

   In 1897, Larmor, an English physicist, showed by analysis that the rate of physical processes in ether motion slows down by the same proportion as the Fitzgerald contraction of matter[4].

   In 1900, Poincare, a French mathematician, used Fresnel, Maxwell, Fitzgerald and Larmor to conclude that all attempts to detect one’s ether motion are frustrated by the slowing of clocks, the contraction of matter, and other self compensating mechanisms[5].

There are now 65 years of experimental tests which confirm this 19th century ether theory is correct. But the reaction of early 20th century physicists to this revolutionary new ether was to keep its implications under wraps and wish it would go away:

  Physicists had been proud of the accuracy of their measurements of length and time, but now it was theorized that their chronometers were running slow by varying amounts, due to the Earth’s motion through the ether, and it was held that their metre rules contracted when pointed in the direction of that motion.

   Physicists had believed in nature as a collection of mathematical laws, but now it was conjectured that all natural phenomena were disturbances in a big ether blob which is a finely crafted made object with ingenious mechanical properties to eliminate all sign of one’s motion through that blob.

   After Darwin[6], most physicists had embraced a meaningless universe in which consciousness is a quirky byproduct of natural selection, but ether theory implied that consciousness is a manifestation of the psychic properties of the ether, designed in from the word go.

And so in 1905 the scene was set for a scientific fraudster. Albert Einstein had scraped through his physics course by the barest margin and was unemployable as an academic. But Albert wrote On the electrodynamics of moving bodies[7] with a view to ‘solving’ the crisis that physicists found themselves in:

   On the assumption that ether motion cannot be detected, Einstein reasoned that there was nothing to stop an observer pretending to be at rest in his own imaginary ether, and nothing to stop him pretending that his light signals travel at 300 000 km/sec in that make believe ether.

   Even better, Einstein realized that if one pretended that one’s clock and measuring stick were unslowed and uncontracted, one would mismeasure relatively moving clocks and objects as being slow and foreshortened, just as if one’s imaginary ether were real.

     
 
But since having countless observers pretending to be in relatively moving interpenetrating ethers was silly, this gave Einstein the excuse he wanted to get rid of all ethers, real and imagined, by redefining them as ‘frames of reference’.

   Finally, Einstein

   (1) renamed the pretence that all observers’ clocks and measuring sticks are unslowed and uncontracted, the ‘relativity principle’,

   (2) renamed the pretence that light speed is constant for all observers, the ‘light principle’, and

   (3) derived the relativity equations, using high school algebra, from the pretend principles.

Einstein got his paper published in Germany’s leading physics journal, and eminent physicists, but not Poincare, soon warmed to Albert’s theory, regardless of its obvious fraudulence:

   Physicists loved the prospect of having their clocks and rulers once again keeping the correct time and measuring the correct length - in future, with Einstein’s theory, slow running clocks and contracted matter would only happen to the other relatively moving guy.

   Physicists loved the reinstatement of nature as mathematical law, and they loved saying goodbye to nature as a vibrating blob of supra-natural ether.

   With the return to a universe of empty space and clumps of matter, physicists could reassert their hegemony concerning the evolution and origin of the universe, and could once again dismiss the mystics and God botherers.

By 1907 senior physicists had decided that to make relativity respectable, Einstein had to be got out of the patent office into a university post. Einstein’s luck continued when Minkowski, his old maths teacher, turned Albert’s equations into rigorous space-time[8], and almost immediately died. Also fortuitous was the premature death of Poincare in 1912.   

Einstein had another lucky break when as physics professor in WW1 Berlin he was able to plagiarize the covariant gravity equations[9] which he promptly renamed ‘general relativity’. Then in 1919, following eclipse observations of starlight bending, English physicists went public with the news that Newtonian gravity had been modified by a German genius.

General relativity was beyond all but twelve people, the papers said, but readers were told that Einstein’s earlier ‘special relativity’ stated there was no ether, and that space and time were relative to the speed of the observer. The novelty of this space-time was a welcome distraction from post war austerity, and the public demanded to know what it all meant.

How the History & Philosophy of Science people duped the masses

Now was the moment for a philosopher-mathematician with an in depth knowledge of physics to put the public straight. Bertrand Russell should have made the following statement:

   As a positivist and agnostic I am sympathetic to any legitimate attempt to dispense with ether, but Einstein’s version of Poincare is a travesty which must be rejected.   

   Philosophers will await confirmation of 19th century ether theory with trepidation, for such confirmation will point to the existence of an omnipresent cosmic mind.

Russell made no such statement - on the contrary he wrote The A.B.C. of Relativity[10] endorsing the Einstein fraud to the masses. Relativity took the world by storm, carried forward by a flood of popular articles and books written by historians and philosophers purporting to show that Einstein relativity was the climax of centuries of research.

This physics mythtery goes as follows:

   After Copernicus, Galileo hit upon the concept of relativity when he noted that dynamic phenomena in a ship’s cabin are the same, irrespective of whether the ship is docked or sailing on a smooth sea.

   Newton, being a theologian, retained ‘absolute rest’, but accepted that the laws of dynamics are the same, regardless of the speed of the laboratory.

   Regrettably, in the 19th century the idea of a physically meaningful absolute rest arose with the belief in an electromagnetic medium.

   Michelson, the American experimentalist, attempted to measure the Earth’s speed through this medium by comparing two light beams reflected from the ends of a right angle[11], and Fitzgerald made the ad hoc suggestion that the experiment was null because the arm pointing in the direction of the ether motion had contracted.

   This bizarre hypothesis put physics into a spin, but a brilliant young patent clerk came to the rescue by showing that Michelson’s experiment had failed because there is no ether, and because it is a law of nature that light speed is constant in all directions for everyone.

   Starting with the eclipse observations in 1919, Einstein relativity has passed every test - for example the recently set up global positioning system depends on the speed of radio signals being constant with respect to an observer at the North Pole, and depends on the GPS satellite atomic clocks running slow due to their speed relative to that observer, just as Einstein predicted in 1905.

    In 2003 we live in an Einstein universe in which all motion is relative, and where the laws of nature are the same for all observers regardless of their speed - a vindication of Galileo, and a rebuttal of Newton’s absolute space and time.

The distortions and lies in this mythtery are too numerous to list in full, but two require mention:

   The mythtery omits that Einstein relativity is a reinterpretation of Poincare ether theory - the purpose of this omission is to prevent people asking if the reinterpretation was in fact a misinterpretation.

   The mythtery retains science as an evidence based search for ultimate reality, whereas post classical science has been redefined as no such thing - the purpose of this deception is to prevent people asking if the redefinition is justified.

But because the masses lack access to the facts, historians and philosophers find that deceiving them is easy.   

How the Histroy & Philosophy of Science people duped themselves

We now come to the question of how historians and philosophers, not ignorant of the facts, manage to deceive themselves.   

In 2003 historians and philosophers of science form an academic discipline, and the most prestigious specialty in that discipline is The History and Philosophy of Space-time. Space-time historians and philosophers are knowledgeable about biographical minutiae, not excluding Einstein’s boast that his special relativity was all made up, was based on arbitrary stipulations, and was opportunistic in motivation! So the wonder is that space-time philosophers have found it possible to legitimize relativity - however where there is a will there is a way.

The first step in this process has been to claim that the truth seeking agenda of pre-20th century physics was hubristic - far better, say the space-time people, to pursue the achievable project of devising math formulae which account for no more than what is actually observed. By such argument the relativity fraud is construed as the rational way to do physics which avoids foolhardy conjectures, like the 19th century light/matter/mind medium.

The second step in this process of ultimate-reality avoidance is to draw an analogy between the Copernican revolution and the Einstein fraud. In his book, The Copernican Revolution[12], Thomas Kuhn, the American historian and philosopher of science, set out to show that the triumph of Copernicus, contrary to conventional wisdom, had nothing to do with the truth value of his theory:

   Copernicus became dissatisfied on aesthetic grounds with the equants that had to be used to improve the predictions of the Ptolemaic model, so for the sake of simplicity Copernicus revived the heliocentric model of Aristarchus[13].

   But Tycho Brahe, a Dutch astronomer, devised a model mathematically equivalent to the Copernican model, in which the planets revolve around the Sun, but in which the Sun revolves around an immobile Earth[14].

   Since it was impossible to determine by experiment or observation whether the Copernican or Brahean model was correct, other ways had to be found to decide between them.

   The issue was resolved when Newton discovered that for the Copernican model the same laws of gravity and dynamics could be used, terrestrially and astronomically, but this ‘cosmological principle’ could not be used with the Tycho Brahe model.



As with Copernicus, so also with Einstein, claim the space-time philosophers:

  Poincare became dissatisfied with Maxwell’s electrodynamics being tied to ether rest, yet Newton’s dynamics applied to any reference frame.

  Therefore Poincare devised transformations using local time and distance to get the electrodynamic equations to apply to any frame[15].

   Then Einstein devised a model, mathematically equivalent to the Poincare model, in which local time and distance were replaced by space-time.

   There was no possible experiment or observation to determine which model was correct, however Einstein in philosopher mode showed the space-time model is preferable because it unifies all the laws of nature under the relativity principle, something not possible in the Poincare model.

The lesson that space-time philosophers draw from the Copernicus/Einstein historical analogy is that all scientific knowledge is tentative, and that ultimately science boils down to the arbitrary choice, by experts, between competing models of the natural world. But was Kuhn correct in denying the possibility of proclaiming the Copernican model as true and the Tycho Brahe model as false? Not really:

   In 1851 Foucault, a French physicist, noticed that a large pendulum kept its swing orientation with respect to the stars, whilst the Earth turned beneath[16].

   Then in 1977 Muller, an American physicist, measured the blue shift of the cosmic background radiation, and noticed that the Earth has an absolute speed of 400 km/sec in the direction of Leo in December, and a speed of only 340 km/sec in June[17].

  

Which is to say, the Foucault pendulum shows the Earth is spinning, not still, and the cosmic background blue shift shows the Earth is revolving around the Sun, not the other way around.

The Kuhnians demonstrate ignorance and/or dishonesty of a high order when they refuse to recognize this rebuttal of Tycho Brahe and vindication of Copernicus, a scientific fact that will never be subject to revision. Finally, and contrary to the space-time philosophers, a definitive choice can be made between Poincare ether theory and Einstein relativity, in this case by the use of thought experiment:

   In 1998 the Ether Drift Club (EDC) extended a 1967 technique by Lord Halsbury[18] to transfer distance as well as clock time between relatively moving measuring sticks, and noticed that Einstein relativity of simultaneity is a mathematical impossibility[19].   

   Then in 2003 the EDC scaled up a spinning orbiting clock experiment[20] to astronomical size and noticed that the speed of light is 300 000 km/sec with respect to the cosmic background frame, and is additive to the absolute speed of the observer[21].

Which is to say, the Halsbury-EDC thought experiment shows simultaneity is absolute, not relative, and the EDC-clock thought experiment shows that light is a classical wave in a cosmic medium, not a photon in space-time.

Future students of the history and philosophy of science will marvel at the complicity of their 20th century counterparts in the relativity fraud. And when they come to write their theses they will make special mention of early 21st century institutional resistance to nature’s rebuttal of Einstein, and vindication of Poincare, via thought experiments which any fool could understand once free of the secular humanist zeitgeist.  

________________________________

1 A. Fresnel, Ann. de Chim. et de Phys. 9 , 57 (1818)

2 J.C.Maxwell, A Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism, Clarendon Press, Oxford(1891)

3 G.F. Fitzgerald, Science 13, 390 (1889)

4 J.Larmor, Phil Trans. Roy. Soc. London 190, 205 (1897)

5 H.Poincare, Arch Neerlandaies 5, 253 (1900)

6 C.R.Darwin, Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1859)

7 A.Einstein, Ann. Physik 17, 891 (1905)

8 H.Minkowski, Space and Time (1908), in The Principle of Relativity, Dover, London (1952)

9 C.J.Bjerknes, Albert Einstein, The Incorrigible Plagiarist, XTX Inc., Illinois, USA (2002)

10 B.A.W.Russell, The A.B.C. of Relativity, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London

11 A.A.Michelson and E.W.Morley, Am.J.Sci. 34, 333 (1887)

12 T.Kuhn, The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, Harvard Uni Press (1956)

13 N.Copernicus, De revolutionibus orbium coelestium (1543)

14 T.Brahe, Earth immovable, but planets revolve around Sun (1590)

15 H.Poincare, C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 140, 1504 (1905)

16 J.B.L.Foucault, pendulum demo in Paris (1851)

17 R.A.Muller, The Cosmic Background Radiation and the New Ether Drift, Scientific American (May 1978)

18 Lord A. Halsbury, Transfer of clock time, re. twin paradox, communicated to G.B.Brown (1967)

19 J.N.Hodges, Demystification and disproof of special relativity,  Ether Drift Club (1998)

20 M.Ruderfer, First order ether drift experiment using Mossbauer radiation, Physical review letters, Vol 5, No 3, Sep. 1, Pp 191-192 (1960)

21 J.N.Hodges, The determination of the one way speed of light by extrapolation from the spinning Mossbauer experiment, and its implications, The Occasional Papers of the Independent Scholars Association of Australia (Victorian Chapter), Vol 2, No 1 (May 2003)  


See also:


WHERE DR. EINSTEIN WENT WRONG
Finding the Virtual Velocity of Light, Solving the Mystery of the Failed Michelson-Morley Experiment


Einstein's E=mc2 'was Italian's idea'


Where is the Special Relativity Train Taking its Scientific and Religious Believers? - Part I
by Mary-Sue Haliburton - Pure Energy Systems News
The debate over Special Relativity takes us into a morass of religious fears and beliefs, and financial and psychological compulsion. Is there a way out?


RELATIVITY: THE MADNESS OF 20th CENTURY PHYSICS
by Pentcho Valev


A theory of Einstein the irrational plagiarist
The fact that Einstein was a plagiarist is common knowledge in the physics community. What isn't so well-known is that the sources Einstein parroted were also largely unoriginal. In 1919, writing in the Philosophical Magazine Harry Bateman, a British mathematician and physicist who had emigrated to the United States, unsuccessfully sought acknowledgment of his work.

"The appearance of Dr Silberstein's recent article on General Relativity without the Equivalence Hypothesis encourages me to restate my own views on the subject," Bateman wrote.

"I am perhaps entitled to do this as my work on the subject of general relativity was published before that of Einstein and Kottler, and appears to have been overlooked by recent writers."


The Eclipse Data From 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science (PDF)
Moody -Eclipse_Data_From_1919.pdf
By Richard Moody Jr.

Abstract:
Prior to 1919, general relativity was an obscure theory by a rising star in physics, Albert Einstein. Based on the perceived need to test this complex and intriguing concept, it was held as gospel that the sunlight passing by the sun should be bent by the gravitational attraction of the sun, something known to Sir Isaac Newton and modified by Einstein. According to prevailing wisdom, this should be observable during a total solar eclipse when the shielding of the sun's light permitted the observation of light from distant stars being "bent" around the sun.

In an effort to play the role of peacemaker and kingmaker, Arthur Eddington traveled to Principe in Africa with the express purpose of proving Einstein right. Prior to that, he was an advocate for Einstein, due, in part, to the fact that both men shared the same political beliefs, Pacifism. In his zeal to be both peacemaker and kingmaker (Eddington wanted to be known as the man who discovered Einstein), Eddington engaged in corruption and derogation of the scientific data, the scientific method, and much of the scientific community. To this day, this completely manufactured data set is quoted by prominent scientists and the organs of publication. It surpasses the Piltdown Fraud as the greatest hoax of 20th and 21st Century science.

PrintPrintable Version

38 Comments

It is not mentioned the only theory that will replace Einstein totaly: AUTODYNAMICS by Ricardo L. Carezani.
Lucy Haye.

Received by email from David de Hilster:

Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 10:44:10 -0800
From: "David de Hilster"
To: sepp
Subject: Documentary Film: Einstein Wrong - The Miracle Year

Documentary Highlights Physic's Miracle Year From the Dark Side

(Long Beach, California) March 19, 2006 -- Bootstrap Productions is currently shooting the documentary film "The Miracle Year" about a mother on a journey into the underworld of physics as she takes on the icon of 20th century physics: Einstein. Patricia de Hilster, known as Mrs. "de", is an ordinary suburban housewife who takes up her son's quest to find out if the theory of relativity is in fact wrong.

Filmmaker David de Hilster has been immersed in this underworld for over 12 years after having met a physicist in his home town of Long Beach, California who showed Einstein wrong in the early 1940s. Years later, with no one willing to take on the controversial and difficult subject as relativity being wrong, de Hilster enlisted himself in a documentary film seminar in Los Angeles, joined the International Documentary Association, and is now a year into production and shooting.

In order to appeal to a mass audience, David asked his mother on Mother's day 2004 to be the main character in the film and go on a journey into the dark side of the physics world where Einstein's fame is more of a problem than the solution. Named for the 100th year anniversary of Einstein's "miracle year", the film traces the journey of Mrs. de and her family in 2005 as they embark on this extraordinary journey and find their own miracle year along the way.

Expected completion of the film is in late 2006 with a theatrical release planned for early 2007. The film is expected to be between 100 and 120 minutes in length. For more information, you can go to http://www.themiracleyear.com.

I believe the fraud or flaw in Einstein's theory is the "shift of ideas"---shifting from distance to clocks.

Please pay attention to the fact that all the time intervals t used in Einstein's equations come from distances, t = d/v. None came from any clock. To appreciate the shift, let us use two different distances D and L:
D _____, and
L ____________.

When we put D and L into Newton's equation t = d/v, we shall get two different time intervals, one shorter one longer. Einstein and company did not tell us the difference was caused by the different distances. Instead they told us that it was caused by the clocks; one worked slower than the other.

One good example can be found in the textbook "Fundamentals of Physics", authored jointly by David Halliday, Robert Resnick, and Earl Walker, published by John Wiley and Sons.

In the textbook, two Einsteinian observers argued about synchronization of clocks, blaming each other for the slower clock, but in reality all the time intervals were not read from any clocks.

I believe this shift of ideas is the fatal flaw of relativity.

Frank Meno says (by email):

The whole physics nonsense is not mere ignorance and stupidity, it is an admitted very profitable racket based on public gullibility, as you can see from the attached article. My photon model is complete and nobody attempts to prove me wrong, yet billions of euros and dollars are spent on the research for the structure of the photon.

He attaches an excerpt from an article by Dr. Robert R. Wilson, published in PHYSICS TODAY, 39, 26, 1986.

Personally as a member of the particles and fields community, I feel that it is our business to push hard for funds for SSC, just as it is the business of colleagues in other divisions to push equally hard for their funding. After all, this is American laissez faire. The measure of unity in physics will be the degree to which we realize that there is no absolute limit on the total amount of funding, that the total amount going to physics is very small compared to what physics can do for our country and our culture. The measure will also be how well we pursue our separate aims without embittering our internal relationships — our unity of physics.

Unification is becoming almost serious enough that it bears a bit of watching -- from a strictly occupational point of view. I suppose thousands of physicists, perhaps all, secretly fantasize stumbling upon the ultimate theory of everything. This is not completely unreasonable, for it is almost a religious precept of science that the solution to a problem is most likely to come by indirection.

Just suppose, even though it is probably a logical impossibility, that some smart aleck came up with a simple, self-evident, closed theory of everything. I-- and so many others-- have had a perfectly wonderful life pursuing the will-o'-the-wisp of unification. I have dreamed of my children, their children, and their children's children all having this same beautiful experience.

All that would end.

APS membership would drop precipitously. Fellow members, could we afford this catastrophe? We must prepare a crisis-management plan for this eventuality, however remote. First we must voice a hearty denial. Then we should ostracize the culprit and hold up for years any publication by the use of our well-practiced referees. Just to be safe, we should put the paper on our Index-- I mean in our index-- where it can be lost for centuries...

Sepp's comment: Although written with a good dose of irony, the quote shows that there is indeed a lot of money to be made in the present situation, and that there may be heavy resistance to change from the scientific research community...

M.H. writes:

I can only speak for myself, so in my opinion, the best I've seen regarding the whole scam (and it is one that's been perpetrated upon the world for about 100 years) is Tom Bearden's summary (he's written about this for years in various places):

http://www.cheniere.org/books/aids/ch4.htm

In there is:

Einstein did not write a complete, unlimited general relativity. He wrote a sort of "special relativity with distant perturbations."

It's basically all there, including what Heaviside (most likely out of unwitting arrogance and prejudicial thinking) did to Maxwell's work as well, and how relativity as Einstein saw it is only a very special case in the vastness of Reality. What this means is basically that we've been held back scientifically for a century (and don't think for a second that there haven't been people out there who knew it, all along), and if you take Tesla's and others' work, like Keeley's, as well, we have a mess from which we may never be able to extricate ourselves before we become generally extinct over the next 50 years, while those in power who have done it will save themselves from it by hiding out in secure locations most likely underground until the worst is over. At which time they will emerge and take over the rest of everything left.

The funny thing is that Einstein actually stated more than once that he was waiting for new discoveries to disprove what he'd theorized, because he fully expected that it would be, as science to him was a constant evolutionary process.

He's really not to blame, but that goes to those who have been manipulating and managing the perceptions of the status quo during all this time.

Why would they do it? Money, power, and outright selfish arrogance and stupidity. And don't forget all those investors who don't give a shit what they invest in, as long as it makes them money, which I guess can be described as self-serving indifference.

Kind regards
M.

I wish to add to my comment that appeared above, about the shift of ideas. Though I called it "shift of ideas," yet it is tantamount to lying and cheating. That is, relativists were teaching the relativity theory by means of lies. The authors of the textbook (Fundamentals of Physics) never read from any clocks and yet they said they did.

How can you teach science, especially the world renowned relativity, by means of cheating? The "Fundamentals of Physics" is a famous and popular textbook in North America. Every year millions of young minds were thus cheated into believing that Einstein's theory was sound and well.

If anyone has access to the said textbook, please try to find the consequence produced by such a cheating. The consequence I have found is: if 2 time intervals were read from the clocks, the 2 intervals will be equal; if the 2 time intervals were computed from Newton's equation t = d/v, the 2 intervals will not be equal. By means of cheating, these 2 unequal time intervals became the readings on the clocks.

I think a revolution in physics is long overdue.

From: bert schreiber
Subject: Response to Hodges

Bert Schreiber responds to Hodge's litany of what is wrong with the Theory of Relativity (TOR) and his (and others) on the existence of the Aether.

No one has set forth what are the FULL properties (entities) of said Aether or have the scalar parameters (numerical values) for them. Until such time this is done then -

The Aether is nothing but a buzz word along with all of the rest; vacuum, wave, space, space-time, speed of sound (does not exist!), speed of light and on and on.

The TOR is and was based on false postulates and some postulates were removed to start with that would have destroyed it. Furthermore the claimed non-existence of simultaneity and the resulting hypothesis is false. Radiation from a black body is proof of simultaneity and ALL such radiation is COHERENT from any source anywhere in the universe. If the TOR existed, lasers would not work either for the identical cause.

Einstein himself formulated an equation that shows the FINITE emission time, hence a finite wavetrain length (that is not its wavelength) for a jumping electron (line spectra) to lose its quantum kinetic energy and transform same to radiation. That too, destroys the TOR.

A theory cannot be based on the operation of a physical apparatus. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle was based on the operation of a spectroscope NOT a microscope. His resulting theory has nothing to do with Planck's Constant or probabilities per se.

The fundamental postulate was that ONLY the usage of light through free space was the permitted communication's carrier signal. When such is used, then there is no way to prove simultaneity. BUT, when the two sources are physically connected (wire or optic fiber) the non-simultaneity no longer exists and neither does the TOE.

A theory cannot be two opposites, exist and not exist simultaneously, due to whether two sources are free or connected, i.e., the light from a neon tube (or from a filament etc.) from one end through the free space and the light from the other end through a fiber to an instrument OR light from two separated moving sources sent through a fiber to one another are both COHERENT! NO relativistic effects normal or Einsteinian frames of reference etc.

It is sadly misquoted and used as Einstein never said or wrote any such thing other than: The APPARENT MEASURED mass increases with VELOCITY. Apparent is not real AND VELOCITY IS NOT SPEED. And neither does any real length contraction or time dilation exist likewise. That is due to the Lorentz Operator or Factor and nothing more or less. Furthermore, it was W. Kaufmann in 1901 who first proposed this for mass and proved it using electrons.

These are but a few of the many more that destroy the TOR.


Regards,
Bert

Light travels in the form of particles, that is, Newton's model of light is correct as far as the propagation of light is concerned. Einstein himself "discovered" this 13 weeks before the publication of his 1905 special relativity paper. So he must have been aware of two obvious consequences of the particle model: first, the speed of the particle depends on the speed of the "gun" that emits it and, second, the particle accelerates in a gravitational field. Later, in Chapter 22 in his "Relativity", Einstein explicitly confirmed the second consequence. Also, he surely knew all along that the particle model perfectly explains the negative result of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Then why did Einstein advance the false postulate of constancy of the speed of light?

Assume initially he had some reason to think the principle of constancy of the speed of light was correct. But then why did he fail even to mention the alternative principle (the speed of light DEPENDS on the speed of the light source) consistent with his earlier "discovery" and explaining so convincingly the Michelson-Morley experiment? The only reasonable answer is: Einstein did know the speed of light was variable but advanced the false postulate tempted by the miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc) this false postulate was going to produce.

Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 22 :

"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position."

Assume the photon occupies consecutively three positions where its speed is:

(1) Position 1: 300000 km/s
Position 2: 300000 km/s
Position 3: 300000 km/s

(2) Position 1: 300000 km/s
Position 2: 300001 km/s
Position 3: 300002 km/s

Which scenario - (1) or (2) - is consistent with Einstein's text? There is an epitaph at the end of the second scenario.

Note that in this case discussing the difference between "velocity" and "speed" would be unproductive. "Velocity" is an unfortunate English translation; Einstein clearly means the scalar (c=300000km/s), not the vector.

Pentcho Valev

Hypnotists in the zombie world have found a very successful way of deriving the results they need: they simply use what logicians call the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You just take some credible implication antecedent -> consequent, e.g.

x=0 -> x(x-5)=0

Then in a zombie world the reverse implication

x(x-5)=0 -> x=0

proves just as credible as the original one. The long series of fallacies of affirming the consequent started in 1850 when Clausius, the founder of Postscientism, derived:

Heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot in the absence of additional changes in the surroundings -> Heat cannot be transferred from cold to hot by using reversible heat engines.

Then the appetite of Clausius increased dramatically and he continued:

Entropy is a state function for an ideal gas -> Entropy is a state function for any system.

Closed integral of dQ/T is smaller than or equal to zero for cycles not involving heating (cooling) at constant volume -> Closed integral of dQ/T is smaller than or equal to zero for any cycle.

The list can be continued - practically all essential results of thermodynamics have been obtained by using the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Albert the Juggler was particularly impressed by the skill of thermodynamicists. He said:

"Therefore classical thermodynamics has made a deep impression on me. It is the only physical theory of universal content which I am convinced, within the areas of the applicability of its basic concepts, will never be overthrown."

So the fallacy of affirming the consequent became Einstein's favorite method. Just an example (again, there is a fallacy of affirming the consequent at the origin of all essential results obtained by Einstein):

In Appendix 1 in his "Relativity" Einstein derives:

If x-ct=0, then x'-ct'=0, and vice versa -> (x'-ct') = lambda(x-ct).

Of course, this fallacy is closely related to the the phrase that Einstein's zombies should repeat 20 times in the morning and 30 times in the evening:

"Divine Albert has deduced his very complex theory from two very simple postulates, the postulate of relativity and the postulate of constancy of the speed of light."

A century of repetition has established Einstein's divinity forever: only a god (at least a semi-god) can extract a lot of information (a whole theory) from something containing very little information (two very simple postulates).

Einstein's divinity established forever, the hypnotists in Einstein's cult can become more careless and even mention additional postulates from time to time:

www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch10.pdf p.14:

3. We have assumed in eq. (10.12) that Dx and Dt are linear functions of Dx' and Dt'.

4. And we have also assumed that A, B, C, and D are constant.

Clearly, Einstein's theory CANNOT be deduced from the two very simple postulates, despite Einstein's divinity. However, if the plagiarist had introduced FOUR OFFICIAL postulates in 1905, as logic required, his plagiarism would have been even more obvious.

Pentcho Valev

EINSTEIN AND THE PARTICLE MODEL OF LIGHT: discussion started in

http://www.physorg.com/news2326.html

Pentcho Valev

John Horgan :

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/horgan05/horgan05_index.html :

"In the midst of all this hoopla, I feel compelled to deplore one aspect of Einstein's legacy: the widespread belief that science and common sense are incompatible."

George Orwell :

"In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

Pentcho Valev

EINSTEIN'S PRINCIPLE OF MAXIMUM ABSURDITY

The journal NATURE:

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050117/full/433218a.html :

"Einstein restored faith in the unintelligibility of science."

In less euphemistic words: Einstein introduced the principle of maximum absurdity in science. His false second postulate (the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source) produced idiocies like "I measure your clock to be slower than mine and you measure mine to be slower than yours" which were able to destroy the rationality of generations of scientists. Yet Einstein knew that was not enough. So he superimposed other idiocies, e.g. "The observer at rest measures the clock of the traveller to be slow and the traveller measures the clock of the observer at rest to be FAST":

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :

"If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A, the journey lasting t seconds, then by the clock which has remained at rest the travelled clock on its arrival at A will be tv^2/2c^2 second slow."

Albert Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 12: "As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest."

In Chapter 23 in his "Relativity" Einstein applies the principle of maximum absurdity again:

Einstein: "If the observer [on the rotating disc] applies the standard measuring-rod....tangentially to the edge of the disc, then, as judged from the Galileian [non-rotating] system, the length of this rod will be less than 1, since, according to Section 12, moving bodies suffer a shortening in the direction of the motion."

This implies that, as judged from the Galileian system, the rotating periphery of the disc is SHORTER than a non-rotating periphery. Length contraction is an idiocy of course but still Einstein finds it suitable to superimpose another idiocy: as judged from the Galileian system, the rotating periphery is LONGER than a non-rotating periphery. In other words, Einstein superimposes length DILATION on the traditional idiotic length contraction.

The principle of maximum absurdity of Einstein is one of the greatest discoveries ever made in psychology.

Pentcho Valev

THE MULTI-EXPLODING DUD WARHEAD.

Special Relativity is the most spectacular fraud in history and is the perfect proof of the saying 'bullshit baffles brains', including some of the world's best. Like any good scam it exploits a basic flaw in the human psyche. It purports to be a 'thought experiment' but is always presented as two identical thought experiments performed simultaneously. This enables the introduction of a superfluous clock into the experiment and it is this redundant clock which causes all the problems.

Basically, Special Relativity requires two observers and a single clock. If it is stated in this form the theory self-destructs in mid-sentence, as follows:

SPECIAL RELATIVITY, SINGLE CLOCK VERSION
'When two cameras in relative motion, either one of which is attached to a clock, both photograph the clock at the same instant equidistantly, their respective printed images will show different times!!!! (there! what's the point of taking it further? but we will do so for the sake of completeness) which will vary in proportion to the relative velocity between the cameras and will show that time has slowed down for the unattached clock, thus proving relative instantaneity and time dilation'.

It was Professor Dingle who first pointed out (and it took him decades to realize it) that no matter how great their relative velocity, when two cameras photograph the SAME clock at the SAME instant from the SAME distance their images MUST ALWAYS BE THE SAME (albeit the image from the unattached camera will be blurred due to relative movement between lens and dial) ergo, no relative instantaneity and no time dilation.

For good measure, here is my personal disproof of relativistic 'shape-shifting' (length contraction):

A comet is observed to be on a collision course with Earth. It is calculated that a 'nudge' will remove the danger and a warhead based on spaced-apart segments of a spherical critical mass of plutonium is sent to intercept the comet at close to the speed of light. According to Einstein, the warhead will remain spherical in its own 'inertial reference frame' but in the reference frame of the comet the plutonium sphere will contract to the shape of a tiddlywink and so cannot achieve instantaneous critical mass. The warhead thus explodes, but does not explode!! Daft, isn't it? That's Special Relativity for you, and it gets worse. The inertia of the impact breaks the comet into several pieces which are heading for Earth in chain formation. A new repeating warhead is designed along the lines of the strange elongated skull in Holbein's painting 'The Ambassadors'. This warhead can never achieve critical mass in its own inertial frame but contracts to a perfect sphere with respect to the comet fragments which it picks off one at a time by repeatedly imploding in its own frame and repeatedly exploding in theirs!

You read it first here.

EINSTEIN'S TIME DILATION: THE FINAL DISPROOF?

An immensely long bungee cord with a mark at its mid point and a camera clock at each end is stretched to breaking point between two space ships. A signal from the mid point simultaneously releases the cord ends and synchronizes the clocks, which are catapulted together with phenomenal equal and opposite acceleration. At the mid point each camera simultaneously photographs its own and the other clock.

From the instant of synchronization it has been impossible to distinguish between the clocks. Each has travelled the same distance and undergone the same acceleration with regard to its own and the other's point of synchronization, therefore THEY ARE STILL SYNCHRONIZED when they meet. All four images are therefore identical although in each case one is blurred due to relative movement between its own camera and the other's clock.

The above conflicts fundamentally with Einstein's Special Relativity theory which insists that the blurred images will show different times from the sharp images due to 'time dilation' supposedly caused by the relative velocity between the clocks. Since it is impossible anyway for a clock to show different times at the same instant, the notion of time dilation is irrational and absurd.

Neil Hambleton

EINSTEIN'S TIME DILATION: THE FINAL DISPROOF? [EXPANDED VERSION]

'Thought Experiments' about time dilation are so-called because they have elements which are impossible to achieve in practice:

1. A pair of observers travelling at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. Einstein cited a railway engine. The catapult cited below is marginally less improbable;
2. Each observer carries a hypothetical clock of absolute accuracy. Hafele & Keating did actual experiments with airborne cesium clocks which are often mistakenly cited as experimental proof of time dilation. Dr A.G.Kelly pointed out that the clocks were two orders of magnitude below the required standard of accuracy and that Hafele himself found their results meaningless.

Einstein's basic postulate, which is shown below to be mistaken, is that when observers are in motion relative to each other their clocks will show that the passage of time itself has varied between them. Some find my earlier single clock disproof of time dilation hard to grasp. The 'thought experiment' below, like Einstein's, involves two clocks:

An immensely long bungee cord with a mark at its mid point and a camera clock at each end is stretched to breaking point between two space ships. A signal from the mid point simultaneously releases the cord ends and synchronizes the clocks, which are catapulted together with phenomenal equal and opposite acceleration. When they meet at the mid point each camera simultaneously photographs its own and the other clock.

From the instant of synchronization it has been impossible to distinguish between the clocks. Each has travelled the same distance and undergone the same acceleration with regard to its own and the other's point of synchronization therefore, contra to Einstein's view, regardless of their relative velocity THEY ARE STILL SYNCHRONIZED when they meet. All four images are therefore identical although in each case one is blurred due to relative movement between its own camera and the other's clock.

The above conflicts fundamentally with Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity which postulates that the blurred images will show different times from the sharp images. Since, as was earlier pointed out in the single clock version, it is impossible anyway for a clock to show different times at the same instant, the notion of time dilation is doubly shown to be irrational and absurd, as also are its associated notions of relative instantaneity, length contraction and paradoxical twins.

Neil Hambleton

neil_hambleton@yahoo.co.uk

EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT TOWARDS A NEW BUSINESS

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/24991
"If you are an academic in a physics department, you are probably used to receiving letters from people who claim to have rewritten the laws of physics. Editors of science magazines are also familiar with such individuals, many of whom take gravity for their victim. Although we should not automatically dismiss these ideas - after all, Einstein was an unknown patent clerk when he rocked the world of physics in 1905 - most fall down because their proponents fail to put them in context with existing knowledge.
The same cannot be said of a growing number of professional physicists who think Einstein's general theory of relativity is ripe for revision."

Bravo! Divine Albert can only be revised by hypnotists in Einstein's criminal cult. Society should pay for the revision of course.

Pentcho Valev

DIFFICULTIES EINSTEIN'S ZOMBIES OVERCOME

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0691122016/002-1780808-4228868?v=glance&n=283155
"It's About Time : Understanding Einstein's Relativity"
by N. David Mermin

"The difficult, counterintuitive part is grasping the implications for moving frames of the absolute constancy of the speed of light."

Initially zombies feel somewhat sad as they juxtapose "absolute constancy of the speed of light" with the following texts written by relativity hypnotists:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
" So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
"On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein"s derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. "

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
" Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so. "

Then the sadness disappears and the absolute happiness zombies have experienced since 1905 is restored.

Pentcho Valev

POSTSCIENTISM AGAINST POSTMODERNISM (SOKAL AFFAIR AND COLLINS AFFAIR)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_Affair
"The Sokal Affair was a hoax by physicist Alan Sokal on the editorial staff and readership of a leading journal in the academic humanities. In 1996, Sokal, a professor of physics at New York University, submitted a pseudoscientific paper for publication in a postmodern cultural studies journal, as an experiment to see if a humanities journal would, in Sokal's words: "publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions"

http://www.physorg.com/news71421491.html
"In a "faking it" style test, a social scientist has fooled a panel of physicist judges into believing he was an experienced gravitational wave physicist. An interview appearing in the journal Nature this week details how Collins -- who has spent more than 30 years studying the community of physicists who work on gravity waves -- answered seven questions about gravity waves set by an expert in the subject. His replies, together with those from a gravitational physicist, were sent to nine researchers in the field. Asked to spot the real physicist, seven were unsure and two chose Collins."

Pentcho Valev

EINSTEIN'S SIN

The experiment of Michelson-Morley should have led to two competing interpretations:

1. As far as the speed of light is concerned, Newton's particle model of light is correct. The speed of light is variable, c'=c+v, where c is the speed of photons relative to the light source and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. This interpretation is simple, even trivial: no miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.) can be introduced.

2. The speed of light is constant, c'=c, independent of v, the relative speed of the light source and the observer. In this case miracles (time dilation, length contraction etc.) are obligatory - without them the falsehood of the principle of constancy of the speed of light would be obvious.

The first interpretation is true, the second wrong, and yet the second was adopted. That was the beginning of a wrong science of course but by no means a sin. The sin started when Einstein implicitly introduced the true c'=c+v interpretation, thereby obtaining correct results (e.g. the frequency shift factor), and conserved the false principle of constancy of the speed of light plus appended miracles, thereby destroying the rationality of generations of scientists.

In 1911 Einstein showed that in a gravitational field the speed of light is variable and advanced the formula

c' = c(1 + V/c^2)

where V is the gravitational potential. One can apply the equivalence principle as shown in

www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4

Note that V=gh=cv. Substitute this in Einstein's formula and you obtain c'=c+v.

Pentcho Valev

WHY EINSTEIN WAS FED UP WITH RELATIVITY IN 1921

A suggestion:

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/07/einsteins_theory_of_infidelity.html

Pentcho Valev

P.S. The mentioned NATURE newsblog can be seen here:

http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/2006/02/testing_times_for_einsteins_th.html

INCOMMENSURABILITY OF SCIENTIFIC LOGIC AND FORMAL LOGIC

Imagine a theoretician (e.g. Einstein) who has obtained the result Y and is deified for that. He also claims he has deduced Y from the premise X (and possibly other premises) which is some assertion about physical reality (e.g. the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source). How should fellows theoreticians react? If they are realists (in the philosophical sense), they should try to find out if X is true or false - if it is false, Y should be abandoned. If they are rationalists, they should check the deductive path leading from X to Y - if the deduction is invalid, Y should be abandoned.

Needless to say, the critical attitude described above presupposes some courage. Unfortunately, theoreticians and philosophers of science are not courageous in this way. They believe in the pessimistic induction - since theories in the past have been rejected as false, all theories, both past and future, are false, including the one harboring the deduction of Y from X. They also believe in the thesis of increasing verisimilitude - in the historically generated sequence the theories are increasing in verisimilitude, that is, in the degree to which they are approximately true. Accordingly, since the theory harboring the deduction of Y from X is the last in a sequence, it is relatively the truest one. Then why should theoreticians and philosophers of science care about details such as the truth or falsehood of X or the validity of the deductive path leading from X to Y? Isn't it much more profitable to sing dithyrambs and worship at the portrait of the author of the truest theory?

In so far as logic undoubtedly belongs to the heart of theoretical science, the established tradition based on the abuse or neglect of logic can be named "Postscientism". This tradition was born in 1850 when Clausius INVALIDLY deduced "All heat engines working between the same two temperatures have the same maximal efficiency" from "Heat spontaneously flows from hot to cold". But why have logicians failed to rectify or even notice mistakes in scientific logic?

In formal logic conditionals (inferences, derivations) are tautologies. This implies that the consequent can only be a NEW ATOMIC PROPOSITION (I call NEW ATOMIC PROPOSITION one which does not participate in the formula of the antecedent) if the antecedent is an inconsistency. Examples:

[p,(p->q)]->q ; the consequent q is NOT A NEW ATOMIC PROPOSITION

(p,not-p)->q ; the consequent q is a new atomic proposition but THE ANTECEDENT IS AN INCONSISTENCY

In scientific logic as applied in deductive theories (e.g. relativity, thermodynamics) ALL CONSEQUENTS ARE NEW ATOMIC PROPOSITIONS. That is, all conditionals are of the type (p,q)->r. Therefore there can be no overlapping between the set of conditionals in formal logic and the set of conditionals in scientific logic. See more in

http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev4.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev7.htm

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

HERESY IN SCIENCE

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm :
"In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim there was evidence that the Earth went around the Sun, and in our time it is heresy to argue that there is evidence that the speed of light in space is not constant for all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, as predicted by Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905 Special Relativity Theory."

In the 21st century challenging Einstein's absurdities is not heresy anymore. Since no more substantial money could come from the divine theory sycophants are massing in the only area that has remained relatively safe (quantum mechanics). The only problem is that, as a whole, science is dying:

http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francis_sedgemore/2006/08/sedgemore_says.html
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/04/physics_in_america_at_crossroa.html
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspicks/2006/08/perception_that_physics_is_too.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051128/full/nj7068-705a.html
http://www.nyas.org/publications/UpdateUnbound.asp?UpdateID=41
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6883/full/416777b.html
http://education.guardian.co.uk/universitiesincrisis/story/0,,1851446,00.html

Sic transit gloria mundi.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

HONESTY IN EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT

Einstein's hypnotists don't camouflage anymore the fact that the speed of light is variable, not constant:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars. One can do a simple Huyghens reconstruction of a wave front, taking into account the different speed of advance of the wavefront at different distances from the star (variation of speed of light), to derive the deflection of the light by the star.
Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in:
"On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911.
which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book "The Principle of Relativity." You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: . . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so."

Why is hypnotists' honesty increasing? Because hypnotists feel much more comfortable now: the voice of Einstein's zombies has been reduced to a simple echo. For instance:

The hypnotist: CONSTANT! Zombies' echo: CONSTANT, CONStant, constant.....

The hypnotist: VARIABLE! Zombies' echo: VARIABLE, VARIable, variable......

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

"In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim there was evidence that the Earth went around the Sun, and in our time it is heresy to argue that there is evidence that the speed of light in space is not constant for all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, as predicted by Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905 Special Relativity Theory."

No one has set forth what are the FULL properties (entities) of said Aether or have the scalar parameters (numerical values) for them. Until such time this is done then -

The Aether is nothing but a buzz word along with all of the rest; vacuum, wave, space, space-time, speed of sound (does not exist!), speed of light and on and on.

THE LAST CONVULSION OF EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT

Einstein's cult has spent billions of dollars for the destruction of human rationality and the success is remarkable. In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift: their result confirmed Einstein's formula c'=c+V/c, where c' is the VARIABLE speed of light in a gravitational field, c is the initial speed of light relative to the light source and V is the gravitational potential. By applying the equivalence principle one can easily deduce c'=c+v, where c' is the VARIABLE speed of light in the absence of a gravitational field and v is the relative speed of the light source and the observer. Clearly, the gravitational redshift is fatal for Einstein's theory and modern physics in general. Yet the destroyed human rationality has been misled into believing that the redshift is a glorious confirmation of Einstein's divinity.

However happiness cannot be eternal and after 100 years of uncontrolled outrages Einstein's cult will have to disappear. Its last convulsion can be seen in

http://www.physorg.com/news77373279.html

where the gravitational redshift is shown to confirm, for the last time, the divine theory.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

SUBTLETY AND BEAUTY IN EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT

http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/Walsworth/pdf/Science_relativity.pdf
SCIENCE VOL 307 "Special Relativity Reconsidered":

"Now, however, some physicists wonder whether special relativity might be subtly - and perhaps beautifully - wrong."

Einstein has clearly explained where the subtlety and the beauty come from:

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

THE ROYAL SOCIETY AND EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT

The Royal Society: Science is dying!

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=5215
www.royalsoc.ac.uk/discussion.asp?id=2645 (link gone bad - Sepp)

Einstein's criminal cult: Divine Einstein!

http://www.haverford.edu/physics-astro/songs/divine.htm
http://video.google.it/videoplay?docid=-3937213533481268060

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

EINSTEIN'S CRIMINAL CULT AND MAXWELL'S THIRD EQUATION

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ :
"Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of a magnet and a conductor. The observable phenomenon here depends only on the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet, whereas THE CUSTOMARY VIEW draws a sharp distinction between the two cases in which either the one or the other of these bodies is in motion."

http://www.powells.com/cgi-bin/biblio?inkey=4-0486406768-0 :
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann:
(I do not have the text in English so I am giving it in French)
Banesh Hoffmann, "La relativite, histoire d'une grande idee", Pour la Science, Paris, 1999, p. 111:
"Dans la premiere partie de son article Einstein analysait l'induction d'un courant dans une boucle par un aimant. Il soulignait que l'intensite du courant depend du mouvement relatif de la boucle et de l'aimant et non pas de leur mouvement absolu a travers l'ether. Or, confirmait Einstein, SELON LES EQUATIONS DE MAXWELL, les phenomenes physiques seront differents selon que la boucle est immobile dans l'ether et l'aimant mobile, ou l'inverse."

Einstein's criminals have replaced "the customary view" (that is, Maxwell's ether model) with "Maxwell's equations". Presumably one can look at the respective Maxwell's equation (the third one which is in fact Faraday's induction law) and see that, according to this equation, it is just the relative motion of the conductor and the magnet that matters. However the lie (the equation draws a sharp distinction between the two cases) has been repeated so many times that, as they look at the equation, people see the opposite of what it really shows. 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
pvalev@yahoo.com

DID MATHER AND SMOOT CONTRIBUTE TO GENERAL RELATIVITY?

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn10216&feedId=online-news_rss20
"The 2006 Nobel prize for physics has been awarded to John Mather and George Smoot for their contribution to the big bang theory of the origin of the universe."

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=1516
Professor Stephen Hawking FRS - Big Bang and Infinity
"This discovery was part of Stephen's collaboration with Roger Penrose through which they used General Relativity to show that space and real time began with a Big Bang, and how they would end in black holes."

It seems a contribution to the big bang theory is at the same time a contribution to general relativity as well. Then why is this latter contribution not mentioned by the Nobel committee? Could this have something to do with the following confessions of Einstein's:

Einstein: "If the speed of light is the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false."

Einstein again: "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

THE BEAUTY OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY

"The gold standard for beauty in physics is Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity. What makes it beautiful?"

The fact that it is an artefact based on the concept of light as a continuous field. If Einstein had used the concept of light as discontinuous particles (photons), the theory would be uglier. However the beauty is fatal: at the end of his career (in 1954) Einstein predicts the death of physics:

"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."

The choice Einstein had to make between the concept of light as a continuous field and the concept of light as discontinuous particles (photons) is rarely mentioned in the literature but still there are eloquent quotations:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/einstein/genius/ :
"Genius Among Geniuses" by Thomas Levenson
"And then, in June, Einstein completes special relativity, which adds a twist to the story: Einstein's March paper treated light as particles, but special relativity sees light as a continuous field of waves. Alice's Red Queen can accept many impossible things before breakfast, but it takes a supremely confident mind to do so. Einstein, age 26, sees light as wave and particle, picking the attribute he needs to confront each problem in turn. Now that's tough."

It is the fatality of Einstein's wrong choice that prevents relativity hypnotists from declaring the end of Einstein's era - they would all lose everything. So hypnotists will continue to worship Einstein's beauty and camouflage Einstein's idiocies forever.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

EINSTEIN'S ZOMBIES WRITE TEXTBOOKS

Sometimes relativity textbooks are written by Einstein's zombies, not by Einstein's hypnotists, and in such cases one can find unforgettable texts. For instance, Einstein's hypnotists often confuse the reader by introducing a light source that emits flashes at time intervals T and then calling the quantity 1/T "frequency", in the hope that the reader will confuse this frequency with the wave frequency (in Einstein's zombie world the reader always confuses the two frequencies). However hypnotists never go so far as to call the distance between the flashes "wavelength" - see, for instance:

www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf pp.2-4

Zombies' reasoning is bolder - they somehow know that there can be no frequency without wavelength:

Murat Boratav, Ryszard Kerner
Professeurs a l'Universite Pierre-et-Marie Curie, Paris VI
"RELATIVITE", 1991, p. 74:
"La source O emet deux signaux successifs separes dans l'espace par une distance lambda_0 et dans le temps par un temps T_0, qu'on peut appeler "longueur d'onde propre" ou "periode propre" en ce sens que ces grandeurs sont caracteristiques du referentiel ou la source emettrice est au repos."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

THE LAST SEANCE IN EINSTEIN'S ZOMBIE WORLD

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2404678,00.html :

"PROFESSOR Stephen Hawking, Britain's world-renowned physicist, is to switch from theories of multidimensional space to the three dimensions of the Imax cinema by starring in a film that sets out his ideas on the origins and fate of the universe.....His aim is to popularise science, but for many the appeal could also lie in the ability of an Imax 3D film to make Hawking and his wheelchair appear to come right out of the screen into the audience....Hawking has become a scientific icon, playing himself in episodes of The Simpsons and Star Trek....He is approached by Olivia, a reporter covering religious affairs for The Times, sister paper of The Sunday Times. She is writing a story about cosmology and the meaning of existence to commemorate the work of Albert Einstein and his special theory of relativity.... Mlodinow said that it would also include dramatised interviews with Einstein and other famous physicists such as Richard Feynman. "It will be like Groundhog Day meets Star Trek," he said....One aim of the film will be to silence the critics who point out that although A Brief History of Time sold millions of copies, few people actually get beyond the first few pages."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

EINSTEIN'S HYPNOTISTS PROVE 5=4

One of Einstein's crucial discoveries is the fact that, if the quantity

1/gamma = (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

is replaced by its Taylor approximation 1-v^2/2c^2, Einstein's lies about gravitational time dilation can be camouflaged to some extent. If Einstein had not made this discovery, that is, if the original quantity (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) had remained unchanged, the malignancy called relativity theory would not have killed theoretical science (perhaps).

Einstein's hypnotists do know about the crucial discovery and always replace (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) with 1-v^2/2c^2. Consider Problem 3 "Circular motion", (a) and (b), on p. 15, solution on p. 19, in

www.courses.fas.harvard.edu/~phys16/Textbook/ch13.pdf

From the solution on p. 19 we have

(a) t_B = t_A (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2)

(b) t_A = t_B (1-v^2/c^2)^(1/2) (1+v^2/c^2)

Accordingly

t_A = t_A (1-v^4/c^4)

In other words, Einstein's theory can only be true if 5=4.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com

SCIENCE IS DYING ONLY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM?

There is a strange contrast in Einstein's world. Science, in particular physics, seems to be dying in the UK and this death is explicit even in the titles:

http://www.buckingham.ac.uk/news/newsarchive2006/ceer-physics-2.html
"PHYSICS IN TERMINAL DECLINE?"

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francis_sedgemore/2006/08/sedgemore_says.html
"A farewell to physics?"

Here is a typical text:

http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/comment/story/0,,1648111,00.html
"We are nearing the end of the "World Year of Physics", otherwise known as Einstein Year, as it is the centenary of his annus mirabilis in which he made three incredible breakthroughs, including special relativity. In fact, it was 100 years ago yesterday that he published the most famous equation in the history of physics: E=mc2. But instead of celebrating, physicists are in mourning after a report showed a dramatic decline in the number of pupils studying physics at school. The number taking A-level physics has dropped by 38% over the past 15 years, a catastrophic meltdown that is set to continue over the next few years. The report warns that a shortage of physics teachers and a lack of interest from pupils could mean the end of physics in state schools. Thereafter, physics would be restricted to only those students who could afford to go to posh schools. Britain was the home of Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and Paul Dirac, and Brits made world-class contributions to understanding gravity, quantum physics and electromagnetism - and yet the British physicist is now facing extinction. But so what? Physicists are not as cuddly as pandas, so who cares if we disappear?"

In the rest of the world science, in particular physics, seems to be flourishing and extremely profitable:

(quoted from abclocal.go.com - link went bad)

"Albert Einstein -- The greatest of all super-geniuses has hit a goldmine with the Baby Einstein line of educational videos and toys, which generated $400 million last year."

(quoted from washingtontimes.com - link went bad)
"Death can't stop celebrities from making millions...It is an odd cultural moment indeed when fifth-place winner Albert Einstein manages to earn $20 million, not on his theory of relativity but for his brainy reputation and signature appearance."

Pentcho Valev

The most gigantic fraud to date is currently under way:

THE 2006 PHYSICS NOBEL PRIZE FRAUD
http://www.bibhasde.com/blackbody.html

Jim Hodges writes a nice, well-penned letter (sent by snail mail) thanking me for putting up this article. He includes copy of an opinion piece published in the 2006 March/April issue of Australian Physics, which gives a surprisingly accurate glimpse of exactly where the proponents of orthodoxy in physics are at. The article is titled Why Science is More Akin to Politics than the Law and it is based on a talk by Ken Baldwin, the Chair of the Australian Institute of Physics at the AIP Congress Dinner in the Great Hall of Parliament House on February 2, 2005.

Here it is, have fun!

- - -

Perspective
Why Science is More Akin to Politics than the Law

Ken Baldwin
Chair, AIP Congress 2005

As chair of a conference of almost a thousand people you can expect to receive a lot of mail - not all of it welcome or solicited. You have to weigh up the numerous requests for participation and representation to achieve a balanced consensus programme that will appeal to all who might attend.

In many ways the achievement of a balanced programme reflects the scientific process itself, in which the adoption of a particular idea follows a democratic path whereby scientists elect to apply a theory because it is useful.

A case in point is the response to a letter that I received as Chair of the Congress who wrote to me on behalf of "The Ether Drift Club":

Dear Ken,

As I understand it AIP 2005 is intended to celebrate Einstein relativity under the theme 'Physics for the [Australian] Nation'. In the view of the Ether Drift Club, Einstein relativity has been of great detriment to the contribution that Physics might otherwise have made to the Australian Nation. It is also our view that this dismal fact will be universally acknowledged within the foreseeable future. Given the above we think you would agree that the eye of History would judge harshly any Organising Committee which allowed AIP 2005 to degenerate into a foreign inspired Einstein panegyric. In order to provide some semblance of scientific balance to the currently proposed Program for AIP 2005, we therefore suggest that space be found in a Plenary Session of the Congress for a member of the EDC to deliver the enclosed paper.


The question we need to ask ourselves is, why as physicists do we find this request quaint? Somebody who knows nothing about the ether, or even Einstein, would think it only reasonable that the EDC paper be given equal time - after all, that's the way our adversarial system of justice works. I maintain that this is a view held by many people, in many walks of life.

Few members of the wider community realise that science does not operate like our adversarial legal system. Indeed, it operates more like a democracy, where experts vote with their feet on a particular idea that works or is believed to be usefully valid. The difficulty is to inform the media, parliamentarians and the general public as to what is the consensus scientific view at a particular time, when it is all too easy for gainsayers to trot out an isolated expert with a contrary opinion.

Take the subject of the 2005 AIP Congress National Press Club address and the plenary presentation by Graeme Pearman - climate change. For decades it was possible to pick off proponents of man-made global warming by pointing to scientists - often numerous, some qualified - who brought into question things we now know to be fact. However, there is now overwhelming - almost universal - consensus amongst the scientific community that -

global warming is real

it is man made

an increase of CO2 levels causes a temperature rise that can be scientifically predicted

What is yet to be agreed is the precise impact of this warming on climate - particularly local climate - and on the degree of risk associated with catastrophic climatic events.

Yet there are people who still maintain that these three overwhelming consensus views can be weighed against the opinion of just a few isolated voices - a ploy often used by vested interests to invoke the adversarial system of debate still used in some arenas.

To adequately reflect reality, the media would need to replace two-person scientific 'debates' with panels offering a place on the majority side to the thousands of scientists who endorse the scientific agreement on climate change. This would soon illustrate the unequal contest that this particular issue has become.

Similarly, the legal system should revisit the use of one expert scientific witness for the prosecution, and one for the defence. This adversarial system should be replaced by properly constituted expert panels that would offer an independent scientific consensus view.

So, unfortunately, our friends at the Ether Drift Club were not given equal time at the Congress. Neither would we have given equal time to proponents of Intelligent Design. This version of Creationism in disguise has achieved an undeserved level of credibility by being given well-meaning, even-handed treatment in so-called debates in the popular media. The public treatment of this issue is made even less tenable by the fact that the media often fails to recognise that ID does not even qualify as a scientific theory. Although a theory may be highly speculative, at least in principle it must be able to predict outcomes that can be tested by scientific experiments. ID does not satisfy this, but merely asserts that a higher authority must have created the complex life forms we see on earth. No experiment can prove or disprove this assertion - hence it is not a theory.

While this tenet is worthy of debate in a theological contest, it has no place in the science classroom except as a good example of what does NOT constitute a scientific theory. It should never be given equal time either in the science classroom or in the popular media.

Interestingly enough, no media presenter would dream of giving equal time to proponents of a flat earth. So essentially the problem is one of degree rather than principle.

This puts the onus even more squarely on we scientists to get out there and show people that science actually does work along democratic lines, and like a democracy requires freedom of speech to work effectively.

But then freedom of scientific speech is another current hot topic well-suited for a future opinion piece.....

- - -

(Ken Baldwin was the Chair of the AIP Congress 2005 in Canberra, where he is Deputy Director of the Research School of Physical Sciences and Engineering, and of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Quantum-Atom Optics. In 2004 he was awarded the Australian Government Eureka Prize for Promoting Understanding of Science for the introduction of "Science meets Parliament".)


Leave a comment

Sepp


Receive updates

Email updates for new articles

Enter your Email