Brainwashing in Modern Physics

[Pentcho Valev]

"But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." https://history.aip.org/exhibits/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm

If Einstein had to wrestle with his conscience "over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair" before adopting this obvious nonsense, then how about today's physics students? Here is what happens:

Professor 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

Clearly, the nonsense is imposed on physics students in a pitiless way, just as the name Bingo the Clowno is imposed on the dude in this video:

View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=iIXIdl5uMGQ


In the end every student gets the name Bingo the Einsteiniano: http://www.staqs.com/images/Waterloo_Einstein_09-2005.jpg

 

[Pentcho Valev]

In modern physics thesis and antithesis harmoniously coexist (doublethink). Theoretical physicists believe that the mass-energy equivalence formula E=mc² was gloriously derived by Einstein in 1905 and at the same time they admit that the formula has nothing to do with Einstein's relativity:

Brian Koberlein: "This led Henri Poincaré to propose non-electromagnetic stresses to hold the electron together. When he calculated the energy of these stresses, he found it amounted to a fourth of an electron's total mass. Thus, the "actual" mass of the electron due to its electric charge alone must be m=E/c². Poincaré's paper deriving this result was published in June of 1905, just a few months before Einstein's paper. Although the equation is often attributed to Einstein's 1905 paper, Einstein didn't actually derive the equation from his theory of relativity." https://www.forbes.com/sites/briank...he-history-of-einsteins-most-famous-equation/

Hans C. Ohanian: "Although Einstein's name is closely linked with the celebrated relation E=mc² between mass and energy, a critical examination of the more than half dozen "proofs" of this relation that Einstein produced over a span of forty years reveals that all these proofs suffer from mistakes. Einstein introduced unjustified assumptions, committed fatal errors in logic, or adopted low-speed, restrictive approximations. He never succeeded in producing a valid general proof applicable to a realistic system with arbitrarily large internal speeds." https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.1400.pdf

Philip Ball: "The biggest revelation for me was not so much seeing that there were several well-founded precursors for the equivalence of mass and energy, but finding that this equivalence seems to have virtually nothing to do with special relativity. Tony Rothman said to me that "I've long maintained that the conventional history of science, as presented in the media, textbooks and by the stories scientists tell themselves is basically a collection of fairy tales." I'd concur with that." http://philipball.blogspot.com/2011/08/did-einstein-discover-emc2.html

George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

It may look that doublethink makes modern physics vulnerable, but that's not the case. On the contrary, brainwashing through doublethink is extremely efficient. Critics are paralyzed and the established ideology reigns supreme:

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful...The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse...The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein was a powerful doublethinker - he was able to defend both thesis and antithesis with the same vigor. So in 1911 he explained that the moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast (ASYMMETRIC time dilation), and that a "sudden change of direction" (this corresponds to the turning-around acceleration of the traveling twin in the twin paradox scenario) is IMMATERIAL:

Albert Einstein 1911: "The clock runs slower if it is in uniform motion, but if it undergoes a change of direction as a result of a jolt, then the theory of relativity does not tell us what happens. The sudden change of direction might produce a sudden change in the position of the hands of the clock. However, the longer the clock is moving rectilinearly and uniformly with a given speed in a forward motion, i.e., the larger the dimensions of the polygon, the smaller must be the effect of such a hypothetical sudden change." http://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol3-trans/368

In 1918 the "sudden change of direction", which had been immaterial a few years before, became CRUCIAL and produced a preposterous HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field:

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

Nowadays the "sudden change of direction" (the turning-around acceleration) remains both immaterial and crucial in modern physics - any Einsteinian is free to teach either "immaterial" or "crucial" or both. Most Einsteinians prefer Einstein's 1911 (much simpler) argument and teach that the "sudden change of direction" is IMMATERIAL:

Don Lincoln: "Some readers, probably including some of my doctoral-holding colleagues at Fermilab, will claim that the difference between the two twins is that one of the two has experienced an acceleration. (After all, that's how he slowed down and reversed direction.) However, the relativistic equations don't include that acceleration phase; they include just the coasting time at high velocity." http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive/archive_2014/today14-05-02_NutshellReadMore.html

Gary W. Gibbons FRS: "In other words, by simply staying at home Jack has aged relative to Jill. There is no paradox because the lives of the twins are not strictly symmetrical. This might lead one to suspect that the accelerations suffered by Jill might be responsible for the effect. However this is simply not plausible because using identical accelerating phases of her trip, she could have travelled twice as far. This would give twice the amount of time gained." https://studylib.net/doc/18205412/part-i-special-relativity

Tim Maudlin: "...so many physicists strongly discourage questions about the nature of reality. The reigning attitude in physics has been "shut up and calculate": solve the equations, and do not ask questions about what they mean. But putting computation ahead of conceptual clarity can lead to confusion. Take, for example, relativity's iconic "twin paradox." Identical twins separate from each other and later reunite. When they meet again, one twin is biologically older than the other. (Astronaut twins Scott and Mark Kelly are about to realize this experiment: when Scott returns from a year in orbit in 2016 he will be about 28 microseconds younger than Mark, who is staying on Earth.) No competent physicist would make an error in computing the magnitude of this effect. But even the great Richard Feynman did not always get the explanation right. In "The Feynman Lectures on Physics," he attributes the difference in ages to the acceleration one twin experiences: the twin who accelerates ends up younger. But it is easy to describe cases where the opposite is true, and even cases where neither twin accelerates but they end up different ages. The calculation can be right and the accompanying explanation wrong." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/

Other Einsteinians cling to Einstein's 1918 absurd paper and teach that the "sudden change of direction" is CRUCIAL:

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but ENOUGH STRANGENESS occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/david-morin/files/cmchap11.pdf

"When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees HIS BROTHER GETTING SUDDENLY OLDER. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox

John Norton: "Moments after the turn-around, when the travelers clock reads just after 2 days, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to read just after 7 days. That is, the traveler will judge the stay-at-home twin's clock to have JUMPED SUDDENLY from reading 1 day to reading 7 days. This huge jump puts the stay-at-home twin's clock so far ahead of the traveler's that it is now possible for the stay-at-home twin's clock to be ahead of the travelers when they reunite." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/spacetime_tachyon/index.html

Physics Girl (4:30): "One last question. What's happening to the clocks during the period of acceleration? We still get time dilation, but we have to use a different set of rules from the general relativity. General relativity states that clocks runs slower in accelerated reference frames. So while your twin is turning around, her clock runs slower, and she sees the same thing. She sees your clock running faster than hers, so you're aging quicker. IT'S DURING THIS PERIOD OF ACCELERATION THAT YOU BECOME THE OLDER TWIN."

View: https://youtu.be/ERgwVm9qWKA?t=270

 

[Pentcho Valev]

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


So the observer starts moving towards the light source

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


and the distance between subsequent pulses shortens for him so that the speed of the pulses relative to him can gloriously remain constant. Is that realistic, theoretical physicists?

Brainwashed theoretical physicists: No comment.

LIGO fakers: "The fact that the speed of gravitational waves is equal to the speed of electromagnetic waves is simply because they both travel at the speed of information." https://discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light

Is "speed of information" defined in physics, theoretical physicists?

Brainwashed theoretical physicists: No, but who cares?

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

Is it true that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light, theoretical physicists?

Brainwashed theoretical physicists: No, but still Kip Thorne does deserve the Nobel Prize.

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

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Musical brainwashing:

"Divine Einstein! No-one's as divine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as divine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as divine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lE-I2I4i00


Max Tegmark: "We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity."

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ


Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lisa Randall, Brian Greene: "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..."

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order" is apotheosis of Einsteinian brainwashing, a symptom of not just dead science, but dying civilization as well. "All of the universe shifts" so that Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light falsehood, "borrowed" from the theory of the nonexistent ether, can become "absolute non-negotiable":

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

Michelle Thaller: "All of the universe shifts around this constant, the speed of light."

View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=DO7J2YIz8tY


"At a time when other scientists believed that the speed of light was variable, Einstein took it as a fixed limit of nature and made it the absolute non-negotiable around which all other variables and parameters enfolded."

The Universe in Verse: Cosmologist and Saxophonist Stephon Alexander Reads “Explaining Relativity” by Astronomer and Poet Rebecca Elson

“It is this, and the existence of limits.”

www.brainpickings.org

Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/special-relativity-nutshell.html

"Einstein pulled all of these ideas together in his 1905 theory of special relativity, which postulated that the speed of light was a constant. For this to be true, space and time had to be combined into a single framework that conspired to keep light's speed the same for all observers." https://www.livescience.com/space-time.html

Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything - you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft - shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is a COSMIC CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER." https://www.amazon.com/Death-Black-Hole-Cosmic-Quandaries/dp/039335038X

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Professor George Smoot, University of California Berkeley: "Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct." http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/gr/PrecessionperihelionMercury.htm

"In his presentations of the complete version of General Relativity in late 1915 and the overview paper in 1916, Einstein presented his calculations of the three experimental tests. These were the rate of precession of the perihelion of the planet Mercury, light bending close to the Sun and the gravitational redshift. He showed the Mercury orbit correction was in excellent agreement with observation, solving a long-standing problem. He repeatedly emphasized that there was no freedom in his theory to adjust the predictions (no free parameters)..." https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2020.0040

Here Michel Janssen describes countless ad hoc adjustments made again and again until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached:

"But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation." Janssen, M. (2002) The Einstein-Besso Manuscript: A Glimpse Behind the Curtain of the Wizard. In The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein (Vols. 1-10, pp. 1987-2006). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

 

[Pogo]

The thing that still amazes me about these folks that did science and complex math before the computer age is that they did it with published log and trig tables and lots of pencils and paper. And some of the math I can’t do with a calculator.

 

[Classical Motion]

We used slide rules for such things. Very handy and no power required. Strap your slide rule on and you were ready to go.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

John Norton unwittingly exposes theoretical physicists ("later writers") as brainwashers. 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

"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

Understandably, Norton and Stachel, high priests in the Einstein Cult, are trying to exculpate Einstein. Actually, Einstein was the author of the hoax - in 1921 he declared that the Michelson-Morley experiment had proved constant speed of light ("Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K"):

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

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Brainwashers know how fatal Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light falsehood is, and try to camouflage the issue. Even if the speed of light is variable, they teach, Divine Albert's Divine Theory remains alive and kicking:

Mitchell J. Feigenbaum: "In this paper, not only do I show that the constant speed of light is unnecessary for the construction of the theories of relativity, but overwhelmingly more, there is no room for it in the theory." http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0806/0806.1234v1.pdf

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

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

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

Jean-Marc Lévy-Leblond: "It could even be that future measurements highlight a tiny, but not zero, mass of the photon; light then would no longer go at the "speed of light", or, more precisely, the speed of light, henceforth variable, would no longer be identified with the invariant limit speed. The operational procedures brought into play by the "second postulate" would become null and void ipso facto. Would the theory itself be invalidated? Fortunately, that would not be the case..." http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf

 

[Pentcho Valev]

The speed of light is VARIABLE AS PER NEWTON

as originally (prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor) proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment. Theoretical physicists teach the opposite (post-truth science). According to them, the experiment disproved Newton's variable speed of light and gloriously proved constancy of the speed of light. But you can never know whether they lie deliberately or, like their audience, they are just victims of brainwashing:

"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

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/

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

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

Edward Witten on modern physics

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

 

[Pentcho Valev]

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back...For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but ENOUGH STRANGENESS occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/david-morin/files/cmchap11.pdf

This "enough strangeness" sounds too enigmatic. Einstein explains it:

Albert Einstein 1918: "3. A homogenous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

That is, as the traveling twin turns around (but considers himself to be at rest), he finds that a homogeneous gravitational field appears and in this homogeneous gravitational field his brother accelerates towards him and reaches speed v. Then the field disappears.

Why is the gravitational field "homogeneous"? Because otherwise it would not go up to the very distant brother and would not cause his acceleration.

The way Einstein brainwashes the world in 1918 is too blatant, even by the standards of the Einstein Cult. David Morin feels some shame (perhaps) and uses the enigmatic euphemism "enough strangeness".

 

[ASTROSTONER]

The whole particle wave duality is textbook cognitive dissonance.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

A large number of experiments have shown that both superluminal motion (not necessarily of light) and subluminal motion of light in a vacuum are possible. However the scientific community is unable to react adequately because Einsteinians bombard it with preposterous and confusing explanations, often involving "group velocity" and "phase velocity". Experimentalists are forced to include such explanations in their articles - otherwise there would be no publication. Sometimes "group velocity" and "phase velocity" turn out to be insufficiently confusing and Einsteinians resort to the ultimate weapon - the speed of information. This speed is undefined nonsense that can solve any problem of the Einstein Cult:

Robert W. Boyd, Daniel J. Gauthier, Controlling the Velocity of Light Pulses: "So why do laboratory results of fast light not necessitate the superluminal transfer of information? It is believed that the explanation lies in the distinction between Vg [group velocity] and the information velocity. The group velocity can take on any value. However, the information velocity can never exceed c and, according to many models, is always equal to c." http://science.sciencemag.org/content/326/5956/1074.full

If it were not for the confusing environment created by the Einstein Cult, both superluminal motion (not necessarily of light) and subluminal motion of light in a vacuum would be regarded as commonplace. Just a few examples:

"For generations, physicists believed there is nothing faster than light moving through a vacuum -- a speed of 186,000 miles per second. But in an experiment in Princeton, N.J., physicists sent a pulse of laser light through cesium vapor so quickly that it left the chamber before it had even finished entering. The pulse traveled 310 times the distance it would have covered if the chamber had contained a vacuum. Researchers say it is the most convincing demonstration yet that the speed of light -- supposedly an ironclad rule of nature -- can be pushed beyond known boundaries, at least under certain laboratory circumstances...The results of the work by Wang, Alexander Kuzmich and Arthur Dogariu were published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature." http://www.cbsnews.com/news/faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

"However, it has generally been thought impossible for particles of light, known as photons, to be slowed as they travel through free space, unimpeded by interactions with any materials. In a new paper published in Science Express today (Friday 23 January), researchers from the University of Glasgow and Heriot-Watt University describe how they have managed to slow photons in free space for the first time...Co-lead author Jacquiline Romero said: “We’ve achieved this slowing effect with some subtle but widely-known optical principles. This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum." https://www.gla.ac.uk/news/archiveofnews/2015/january/headline_388852_en.html

"Light hits near infinite speed in silver-coated glass. A nano-sized bar of glass encased in silver allows visible light to pass through at near infinite speed. The technique may spur advances in optical computing...In a vacuum the refractive index is 1, and the speed of light cannot break Einstein's universal limit of 300,000 kilometres per second. Normal materials have positive indexes, and they transmit at the speed of light in a vacuum divided by their refractive index. Ordinary glass, for instance, has an index of about 1.5, so light moves through it at about 200,000 kilometres per second. The new material contains a nano-scale structure that guides light waves through the metal-coated glass. It is the first with a refractive index below 0.1, which means that light passes through it at almost infinite speed, says Albert Polman at the FOM Institute AMOLF in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. But the speed of light has not, technically, been broken. The wave is moving quickly, but its "group velocity" the speed at which information is travelling is near zero." http://www.newscientist.com/article...ear-infinite-speed-in-silvercoated-glass.html

"Speed of light broken with basic lab kit. Electric signals can be transmitted at least four times faster than the speed of light using only basic equipment that would be found in virtually any college science department. Scientists have sent light signals at faster-than-light speeds over the distances of a few metres for the last two decades - but only with the aid of complicated, expensive equipment. Now physicists at Middle Tennessee State University have broken that speed limit over distances of nearly 120 metres, using off-the-shelf equipment costing just $500...While the peak moves faster than light speed, the total energy of the pulse does not. This means Einstein's relativity is preserved, so do not expect super-fast starships or time machines anytime soon." https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2796-speed-of-light-broken-with-basic-lab-kit/

"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity...In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second...If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum." http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html

"Light Pulses That Travel Faster Than Light Created...The technique developed at NIST is called four-wave mixing, and it works by altering some parts of each individual light pulse. This makes the light move forward faster than it normally would when traveling through a vacuum...The physicists explain that the new research does not violate Albert Einstein's theory on general relativity - which states that the speed of light in a vacuum is the fastest achievable in the Universe. They say that a sort of loophole exists in this theory. By careful tuning of the light source and advanced calculations, it is possible to nudge portions of the light pulses so that they arrive at their destination ahead or behind the main pulse...With four-wave mixing, the NIST investigators produced laser pulses that arrived at their destination a full 50 nanoseconds faster than photons traveling through a vacuum." http://news.softpedia.com/news/Light-Pulses-That-Travel-Faster-than-Light-Created-267499.shtml

"Light hits near infinite speed in silver-coated glass. A nano-sized bar of glass encased in silver allows visible light to pass through at near infinite speed. The technique may spur advances in optical computing...In a vacuum the refractive index is 1, and the speed of light cannot break Einstein's universal limit of 300,000 kilometres per second. Normal materials have positive indexes, and they transmit at the speed of light in a vacuum divided by their refractive index. Ordinary glass, for instance, has an index of about 1.5, so light moves through it at about 200,000 kilometres per second. The new material contains a nano-scale structure that guides light waves through the metal-coated glass. It is the first with a refractive index below 0.1, which means that light passes through it at almost infinite speed, says Albert Polman at the FOM Institute AMOLF in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. But the speed of light has not, technically, been broken. The wave is moving quickly, but its "group velocity" the speed at which information is travelling is near zero." http://www.newscientist.com/article...ear-infinite-speed-in-silvercoated-glass.html

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Is the constancy of the speed of light (Einstein's 1905 second postulate) a logical consequence of the principle of relativity (Einstein's 1905 first postulate)? Everybody knows that it isn't:

"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. EMISSION THEORIES OBEY THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY by having no preferred frame for light transmission, but say that light is emitted at speed "c" relative to its source instead of applying the invariance postulate...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

Yet Einsteinians teach, and everybody believes, that the constancy of the speed of light IS a logical consequence of the principle of relativity (doublethink). Einstein started the hoax by declaring that Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c ± v, contradicts the principle of relativity:

Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in Section 5." http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html

Albert Einstein, On the Principle of Relativity: "After all, when a beam of light travels with a stated velocity relative to one observer, then - so it seems - a second observer who is himself traveling in the direction of the propagation of the light beam should find the light beam propagating at a lesser velocity than the first observer does. If this were really true, then the law of light propagation in vacuum would not be the same for two observers who are in relative, uniform motion to each other - in contradiction to the principle of relativity stated above." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/16

Dave Slaven: "Einstein's first postulate seems perfectly reasonable. And his second postulate follows very reasonably from his first. How strange that the consequences will seem so unreasonable." http://webs.morningside.edu/slaven/Physics/relativity/relativity3.html

Professor Raymond Flood: "A consequence of Einstein's principle of relativity is that the speed of light in vacuum has the same value in two uniformly moving frames of reference."

View: https://youtu.be/IjRSYv7u3T4?t=304


Chad Orzel: "The core idea of Einstein's theory of relativity can fit on a bumper sticker: The Laws Of Physics Do Not Depend On How You're Moving. Absolutely everything else follows from the simple realization that physics must appear exactly the same to person in motion as to a person at rest - the constant speed of light, the slowing of time for moving observers, E=mc2, black holes, even the expanding universe (I've written a whole book about this, explained through imaginary conversations with my dog)." http://www.forbes.com/sites/chadorzel/2015/05/29/four-reasons-to-not-fear-physics/

Michael Fowler: "Therefore, demanding that the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames implies that the speed of any light wave, measured in any inertial frame, must be 186,300 miles per second. This then is the entire content of the Theory of Special Relativity: the Laws of Physics are the same in any inertial frame, and, in particular, any measurement of the speed of light in any inertial frame will always give 186,300 miles per second." http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/109/lectures/spec_rel.html

Leonard Susskind: "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with a certain velocity."

View: https://youtu.be/toGH5BdgRZ4?t=626


George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Perhaps the most preposterous syllogism in the history of science (universally taught in modern physics):

Premise 1: The laws of physics are the same in every inertial frame (principle of relativity).

Premise 2: Einstein said that the speed of light is a law of physics.

Conclusion: The speed of light is the same in every inertial frame.

Leonard Susskind: "The principle of relativity is that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. That principle existed before Einstein. Einstein added one law of physics - the law of physics is that the speed of light is the speed of light, c. If you combine the two things together - that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and that it's a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity, you come to the conclusion that light must move with the same velocity in every reference frame. Why? Because the principle of relativity says that the laws of physics are the same in every reference frame, and Einstein announced that it is a law of physics that light moves with certain velocity."

View: https://youtu.be/toGH5BdgRZ4?t=626

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Brian Greene teaches ASYMMETRIC time dilation: The moving clock is slow, the stationary one is fast:

View: https://youtu.be/Q1y3YnPgaY4?t=1157


Asymmetric time dilation is non sequitur - doesn't follow from Einstein's 1905 postulates. The postulates, true or false, entail SYMMETRIC time dilation: Either clock is slow as judged from the other clock's system.

Why does Brian Greene abuse logic? Because SYMMETRIC time dilation, the valid deduction, makes no predictions. In contrast, ASYMMETRIC time dilation, the non sequitur, predicts TIME TRAVEL INTO THE FUTURE - the preposterous miracle that converted Einstein into a deity:

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

 

[Ken Fabian]

Pentcho - I have high confidence in modern physics. It got where it is the hard way, legitimately. It isn't dependent on brainwashing or unreasonable exclusion of alternate hypotheses. I don't think you have any special insights that change that. You aren't going to overturn the foundations of modern physics.

I have no real wish to engage in debate about it - I expect it would be pointless - so I have avoided engaging with your contributions here; the lack of participation should not be taken as agreement with you.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein devised the asymmetric-time-dilation hoax in 1905:

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

Einstein's 1905 postulates entail symmetric, not asymmetric, time dilation. So if Einstein had obeyed logic and had performed a valid deduction, his conclusion would have been as follows:

On its arrival at B the clock moved from A to B lags behind the stationary clock only as judged from the stationary clock's system. As judged from the moving clock's system, however, on its arrival at B, the clock moved from A to B is AHEAD of the stationary clock.

Why did Einstein abuse logic? Because the logically valid conclusion sounds preposterous. If Einstein had stated it explicitly, Max Planck would not have found courage to publish Einstein's 1905 paper.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Einsteinians abuse their own religion (and so completely destroy human rationality):

"The person traveling at the speed of light would experience a slowing of time. For that person, time would move slower than for someone who is not moving." https://www.scienceabc.com/pure-sci...en-if-you-traveled-at-the-speed-of-light.html

Einstein's 1905 postulates, true or false, entail exactly the opposite:

The person traveling at the speed of light would experience a SPEEDING UP of time. For that person, time would move FASTER than for someone who is not moving.

In other words, the postulates entail that a traveler who checks stationary clocks against his spaceship's clocks will find stationary clocks slow and his spaceship's clocks FAST. This also means that the traveler sees himself aging FASTER than stationary people.