Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals?

Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
Below John Norton exposes theoretical physicists ("later writers") as deliberate 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

The situation is even more dramatic. Theoretical physicists know that, in 1887, prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor, the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light posited by the ether theory and later "borrowed" by Einstein as his 1905 second, "light" postulate:

"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

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

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:

"Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

The deliberate lie:

"The conclusion of the Michelson-Morley experiment was that the speed of light was a constant c in any inertial frame. Why is this result so surprising? First, it invalidates the Galilean coordinate transformation. Note that with the frames as defined in the previous section, if light is travelling in the x' direction in frame O' with velocity c, then its speed in the O frame is, by the Galilean transform, c+v, not c as measured. This invalidates two thousand years of understanding of the nature of time and space. The only comparable discovery is the discovery that the earth isn't flat! The Michelson Morley experiment has inevitably brought about a profound change in our understanding of the world." http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm

Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: "A missile fired from a plane moves faster than one fired from the ground because the plane's speed adds to the missile's speed. If I throw something forward on a moving train, its speed with respect to the platform is the speed of that object plus that of the train. You might think that the same should happen to light: Light flashed from a train should travel faster. However, what the Michelson-Morley experiments showed was that this was not the case: Light always moves stubbornly at the same speed. This means that if I take a light ray and ask several observers moving with respect to each other to measure the speed of this light ray, they will all agree on the same apparent speed!" https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, Chapter 2: "The special theory of relativity was very successful in explaining that the speed of light appears the same to all observers (as shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment)..." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168

Brian Cox, p. 91: "...Maxwell's brilliant synthesis of the experimental results of Faraday and others strongly suggested that the speed of light should be the same for all observers. This conclusion was supported by the experimental result of Michelson and Morley, and taken at face value by Einstein." http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586

Ethan Siegel: "The speed of light doesn't change when you boost your light source. Imagine throwing a ball as fast as you can. Depending on what sport you're playing, you might get all the way up to 100 miles per hour (~45 meters/second) using your hand-and-arm alone. Now, imagine you're on a train (or in a plane) moving incredibly quickly: 300 miles per hour (~134 m/s). If you throw the ball from the train, moving in the same direction, how fast does the ball move? You simply add the speeds up: 400 miles per hour, and that's your answer. Now, imagine that instead of throwing a ball, you emit a beam of light instead. Add the speed of the light to the speed of the train... and you get an answer that's completely wrong. Really, you do! This was the central idea of Einstein's theory of special relativity, but it wasn't Einstein who made this experimental discovery; it was Albert Michelson, who's pioneering work in the 1880s demonstrated that this was the case." https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...amental-physics-that-came-as-total-surprises/

Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morley experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding." https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module3_weird_logic.htm

Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Beginning in 1905, investigations into the behavior of light got positively spooky. That year, Einstein published his special theory of relativity, in which he ratcheted up M & M's null result to an audacious level. The speed of light in empty space, he declared, is a universal constant, no matter the speed of the light-emitting source or the speed of the person doing the measuring." https://www.amazon.fr/Death-Black-Hole-Cosmic-Quandaries/dp/039335038X

View: https://youtu.be/fnzLpyDsn3M?t=77
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
166
59
1,660
I don't think theoretical physicists are criminals; although they do belong to the class of religious fanatics. It is literally a question of: " believe this one improbable or esoteric fact, and the whole of physics will become clear to you." The only problem is that physics cannot be and has never been, based on improbabilities and arcane beliefs. Physics is based on facts.
 
The speed of light is invariably constant 'c'.

That said, a traveler, a ship, designated B, is oncoming to destination A at whatever speed. It is emitting light the whole way. At position 'z' distantly relative to destination A, closing, oncoming, B emits light toward A. At position 'y', closing at speed, oncoming at speed, relative to A, B emits light toward A. At position 'x', B emits light towards A. And so on and so forth, closing, oncoming, through position 'w', 'v'. 'u', ' through 'f', 'e', 'd', to destination A emitting light constantly at each and every position, through each and every position, closing up toward A. What then is the relationship between light emitted at and through position 'u' to light emitted at position 'v', light emitted at and through position 'w', 'x', y', and 'z'? What then is the relationship between light emitted at and through position 'd' to the light constantly emitted at and constantly through all positions, 'e' through 'z' toward destination A's observer from closing B traveler?

It isn't one emission of light; it is many (even if not an infinity of) emissions of light being emitted by B continuously 'z' to 'd' (herein) toward A without interruption in B's constant of closing the distance, including traversing the rest of the universe's light-time histories (infinitely plural) in place and in play as the larger playing field in place and in play all around, the universe [grid] of light and lights, vastly variable light-time 'histories', at the constant speed of light ('c') enclosing, the combine of B and A, to A!

It isn't the speed of light accelerated (it measures 'c' leaving B and arriving A); it is time, or rather not time itself but one stream of light-time past-history (-) through light-time futures (+) to destined arrival at A (the 0-point real space-time of A), that is accelerated 'z' to 'd', 'd' to 'z', the stream of many, many, emissions of light more massively closed up, contracted, in space and time between emission point 'z' and emission point 'd', and a universe closing evermore between B and A.
 
Last edited:
Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
I don't think theoretical physicists are criminals; although they do belong to the class of religious fanatics.

Yes they were religious fanatics in the past but not nowadays. Today's theoretical physicists are just making money and career by producing hype. For instance, they often convert their books into bestsellers by mercilessly repudiating Einstein:

"Was Einstein wrong? At least in his understanding of time, [Lee] Smolin argues, the great theorist of relativity was dead wrong. What is worse, by firmly enshrining his error in scientific orthodoxy, Einstein trapped his successors in insoluble dilemmas." https://www.amazon.com/Time-Reborn-Crisis-Physics-Universe-ebook/dp/B009JWCQMK

"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says [Lee] Smolin." http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review

"Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity." Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light, p. 250 http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

After the book is sold, the "heretics" restart singing Divine Einstein:

main-qimg-16dbf2dbddce45786bb5701615e8f86d-lq
 

Jzz

May 10, 2021
166
59
1,660
Yes they were religious fanatics in the past but not nowadays. Today's theoretical physicists are just making money and career by producing hype. For instance, they often convert their books into bestsellers by mercilessly repudiating Einstein:
I agree, look at the two billion dollar odd LIGO experiment, which was doomed to failure even before its inception!
 
Last edited:
Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
I agree, look at the two billion dollar odd LIGO experiment, which was doomed to failure even before its inception!

"The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration completed an end-to-end system test of their detection capabilities at their recent joint collaboration meeting in Arcadia, CA [in 2011]. Analysis of data from LIGO and Virgo's most recent observation run revealed evidence of the elusive signal from a neutron star spiraling into a black hole. The collaboration knew that the "detection" could be a "blind injection" -- a fake signal added to the data without telling the analysts, to test the detector and analysis. Nonetheless, the collaboration proceeded under the assumption that the signal was real, and wrote and approved a scientific paper reporting the ground-breaking discovery. A few moments later, according to plan, it was revealed that the signal was indeed a blind injection. While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves. LIGO and Virgo scientists are looking forward to observations with the advanced detectors which are expected to contain many real signals from the distant reaches of the universe." https://www.ligo.org/news/blind-injection-content.html

How can the "detection capabilities" be tested by adding fake data to the system? It is like testing the detection capabilities of a radio music player by inserting music in the device. There is only one thing that can be tested in this way: the scientific community's readiness to be fooled.

Before 2015, LIGO fakers diligently rehearsed. They would secretly inject false data, inform the scientific community about a great discovery, study scientists' reactions, finally fix noticed Achilles heels.

The dress rehearsal occurred in 2010. A few "expert administrators" injected fake data, deceived the whole world and misled astronomers who wasted time and money in search of the electromagnetic counterpart. Remarkably, "this became particularly useful starting in September 2015":

"...a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data, maintaining strict confidentiality. They did just that in the early morning hours of 16 September 2010. Automated data analyses alerted us to an extraordinary event within eight minutes of data collection, and within 45 minutes we had our astronomer colleagues with optical telescopes imaging the area we estimated the gravitational wave to have come from. Since it came from the direction of the Canis Major constellation, this event picked up the nickname of the "Big Dog Event". For months we worked on vetting this candidate gravitational wave detection, extracting parameters that described the source, and even wrote a paper. Finally, at the next collaboration meeting, after all the work had been cataloged and we voted unanimously to publish the paper the next day. However, it was revealed immediately after the vote to be an injection and that our estimated parameters for the simulated source were accurate. Again, there was no detection, but we learned a great deal about our abilities to know when we detected a gravitational wave and that we can do science with the data. This became particularly useful starting in September 2015." https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/a-null-result-is-not-a-failure

In the physics establishment, only Natalia Kiriushcheva found courage to expose (more precisely, to hint at) the truth. And the truth is that LIGO's gravitational waves are fakes:

"On September 16, 2010, a false signal - a so-called "blind injection" - was fed into both the Ligo and Virgo systems as part of an exercise to "test ... detection capabilities". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. But take a look at the visualisation of the faked signal, says Dr Kiriushcheva, and compare it to the image apparently showing the collision of the twin black holes, seen on the second page of the recently-published discovery paper. "They look very, very similar," she says. "It means that they knew exactly what they wanted to get and this is suspicious for us: when you know what you want to get from science, usually you can get it." The apparent similarity is more curious because the faked event purported to show not a collision between two black holes, but the gravitational waves created by a neutron star spiralling into a black hole. The signals appear so similar, in fact, that Dr Kiriushcheva questions whether THE "TRUE" SIGNAL MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN AN ECHO OF THE FAKE, "STORED IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEM from when they turned off the equipment five years before"." https://www.thenational.ae/arts-cul...to-make-waves-as-black-holes-collide-1.188114

Kiriushcheva immediately disappeared from public debate, converted into an unperson perhaps:

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed."
 
Last edited:
Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's...As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html

Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light:

Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity." http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings

Possible explanations:

(A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable.

(B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about.

My estimate:

(A) 95% true.

(B) 5% true.
 
Dec 27, 2022
438
12
185
Assume that a light source emits equidistant pulses and an observer starts moving towards the source:

View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE


Einsteinians want the speed of light relative to the observer to remain constant, but for this to happen, the motion of the observer should somehow change (decrease) the distance between subsequent pulses. And, obviously, the motion of the observer CANNOT change the distance between subsequent pulses.

How do Einsteinians solve the problem? There is a simple directive:

When you teach Doppler effect in light, avoid moving observer - talk about moving source only. If you still decide to teach moving observer, don't discuss speed of light relative to the observer and distance between pulses (wavelength) simultaneously.

The directive is universally obeyed. So far I have found only three exceptions:

Professor Martin White, UC Berkeley: "...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength...The same principle applies for light as well as for sound. In detail the amount of shift depends a little differently on the speed, since we have to do the calculation in the context of special relativity. But in general it's just the same: if you're approaching a light source you see shorter wavelengths (a blue-shift), while if you're moving away you see longer wavelengths (a red-shift)." http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/darkmatter/dopplershift.html

John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (and correspondingly for the wavelength - the distance between crests - to have decreased)." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/big_bang_observed/index.html

Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed."
View: https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts