Fraudulent Confirmations of Einstein's Relativity

[Pentcho Valev]

Richard Feynman: "A very interesting example of the slowing of time with motion is furnished by muons, which are particles that disintegrate spontaneously after an average lifetime of 2×10^(−6) sec. They come to the earth in cosmic rays, and can also be produced artificially in the laboratory. Some of them disintegrate in midair, but the remainder disintegrate only after they encounter a piece of material and stop. It is clear that in its short lifetime a muon cannot travel, even at the speed of light, much more than 600 meters. But although the muons are created at the top of the atmosphere, some 10 kilometers up, yet they are actually found in a laboratory down here, in cosmic rays. How can that be? The answer is that different muons move at various speeds, some of which are very close to the speed of light. While from their own point of view they live only about 2 μsec, from our point of view they live considerably longer - enough longer that they may reach the earth." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

Einsteinians fraudulently call 2×10^(−6) sec "lifetime of muons at rest". Actually, this is the postcatastrophic lifetime of muons that have crashed into the detector at a speed close to the speed of light and naturally disintegrate faster than muons in flight (similarly, the postcatastrophic lifetime of car drivers "at rest" is shorter than the lifetime of drivers in motion):

"The lifetime of muons at rest [...] Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay. The amount of time that a muon existed before it reached the detector had no effect on how long it continued to live once it entered the detector. Therefore, the decay times measured by the detector gave an accurate value of the muon's lifetime. After two kinds of noise were subtracted from the data, the results from three data sets yielded an average lifetime of 2.07x 10^(-6)s, in good agreement with the accepted value of 2.20x 10^(-6)s." http://cosmic.lbl.gov/more/SeanFottrell.pdf

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..." https://www.scribd.com/document/266379869/Muon-Rutgers

 

[Pentcho Valev]

"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

Einstein's no-adjustment lie taught nowadays:

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

Sometimes the truth resurfaces even in post-truth science. 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.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

In 1924 Eddington calculated the "Einstein shift" and commanded two observatories to confirm his estimate (by that time he was an all-powerful godfather in post-truth physics). For half a century, the fraudulent test was deemed the most solid confirmation of Einstein's general relativity:

"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger – 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see." http://puritanreformed.blogspot.bg/2010/08/fallible-nature-of-supposed-objective.html

"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H

"Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result...In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported...More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H

 

[Pentcho Valev]

The GPS fraud: One calculates the distance between the satellite and the receiver by multiplying the time by Einstein's CONSTANT speed of light, obtains a wrong value (because the speed of light is VARIABLE, not constant), and "adjusts the time" in order to fix the wrongness. Finally, Einsteinians inform the gullible world that Einstein's relativity is gloriously confirmed:

"Your GPS unit registers the exact time at which it receives that information from each satellite and then calculates how long it took for the individual signals to arrive. By multiplying the elapsed time by the speed of light, it can figure out how far it is from each satellite, compare those distances, and calculate its own position...According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, a clock that's traveling fast will appear to run slowly from the perspective of someone standing still. Satellites move at about 9,000 mph - enough to make their onboard clocks slow down by 8 microseconds per day from the perspective of a GPS gadget and totally screw up the location data. To counter this effect, the GPS system adjusts the time it gets from the satellites by using the equation here." https://www.wired.com/2011/06/st-equation-gps/

 

[Atlan0001]

Curvature always exists (and curvatures, plural, always exist). Observation always follows -- always is along -- some curvature. Sometimes for reasons not so obvious to observation, increased, increasing, curvature.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

The lie that the Michelson-Morley experiment has proved constant speed of light was universally taught until 7-8 years ago (then clever Einsteinians realized that this lie is too blatant, even by the standards of the Einstein Cult):

"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


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:

"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

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

 

[Pentcho Valev]

A preposterous "confirmation" of Einstein's relativity was devised by Alväger and is cited by Einsteinians as "unambiguous":

Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "Those arguments have since been criticized, but the pion test is unambiguous. The definitive experiment was carried out by Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964)." http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html

Here is Alväger's paper:

Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region, Alväger, T.; Farley, F. J. M.; Kjellman, J.; Wallin, L., 1964, Physics Letters, vol. 12, Issue 3, pp.260-262 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031916364910959

High energy particles bump into a beryllium target. As a result, gamma photons leave the target and travel at c relative to the target. Antirelativists do not see how this can refute Newton's theory of light but Einsteinians do. They teach that initially a pion is generated inside the beryllium target and this pion travels at 0.9999c inside the target. It decays into two gamma photons inside the target and therefore this pion is a moving source of light. And since the source travels at c inside the target, the gamma photons must travel at 2c if Newton's theory of light is correct. But they don't - they travel at c.

If Newton's theory of light had predicted that the products of the disintegration of a particle continue with a speed twice as great as the speed of the particle, it would be the silliest theory in the history of science. The straw man built by Alväger & Co is obviously preposterous, and yet the experiment is cited as convincing, "unambiguous" confirmation of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

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

Michael Brooks: "That's what the astronomer Arthur Eddington did in 1919 when he cherry-picked among his observations of an eclipse. The idea was to prove Einstein's general theory of relativity. However, Eddington's analysis of the data was questionable enough for the Nobel Prize committee to exclude relativity from Einstein's 1921 Nobel Prize for physics. Assessing the merits of relativity was impossible until it was "confirmed in the future," the committee said." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/scientists-behaving-badly_b_1448729

Frederick Soddy, An Address to the fourth Conference of Nobel Prizewinners at Lindau (Bodensee), S. Germany, 30.VI.1954: "Incidentally the attempt to verify this during a recent solar eclipse, provided the world with the most disgusting spectacle perhaps ever witnessed of the lengths to which a preconceived notion can bias what was supposed to be an impartial scientific inquiry. For Eddington, who was one of the party, and ought to have been excluded as an ardent supporter of the theory that was under examination, in his description spoke of the feeling of dismay which ran through the expedition when it appeared at one time that Einstein might be wrong! Remembering that in this particular astronomical investigation, the corrections for the normal errors of observation - due to diffraction, temperature changes, and the like - exceeded by many times the magnitude of the predicted deflection of the star's ray being looked for, one wonders exactly what this sort of "science" is really worth." http://www.reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/aarch/pages/10-soddy-to-nobel-prizewinners.htm

Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science." http://www.epubsbook.com/books/2203_7.html

Yes, fraud is "not an uncommon occurrence in science".

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Einsteinians fraudulently teach that the gravitational redshift measured in Pound-Rebka type experiments gloriously prove gravitational time dilation, a miracle (absurdity) in Einstein's general relativity:

Jim Al-Khalili: "There is another way of slowing time down that does not require high speed travel. Instead, Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity (1915) shows that a gravitational field will do the same job. The effect can even be seen due to the Earth’s gravity but, due to the relatively small mass of our planet, the effect is tiny. Nevertheless, it was measured by two Americans, Pound and Rebka, in 1958 in one of the most precise and beautiful experiments in the whole of physics. Thus clocks run faster out in space than they do on the surface of the Earth. To travel into the future, all you need to do is find a suitable massive object, such as a black hole or neutron star, which has a strong enough gravitational field to significantly warp spacetime in its vicinity, and orbit around it a few times. While doing this your time will flow more slowly than it does in the relatively weaker gravitational field on the surface of the Earth." http://personal.ph.surrey.ac.uk/~phs1ja/1STR/time.pdf

David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed. [...] This GR time-dilation effect was first measured at Harvard by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy." http://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilliam/Chapter 13 General Relativity.pdf

"In astrophysics, gravitational redshift or Einstein shift is the process by which electromagnetic radiation originating from a source that is in gravitational field is reduced in frequency, or redshifted, when observed in a region of a weaker gravitational field. This is a DIRECT RESULT OF GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION." https://educalingo.com/en/dic-en/einstein-shift

The truth is that the frequency shift measured in Pound-Rebka type experiments proves (is proportional to) the speed-of-light shift predicted by Newton's theory, and therefore there is no gravitational time dilation. Some Einsteinians unwittingly confirm this:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics : "You do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices...The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html

Banesh Hoffmann (p. 139): "The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation." http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Here Pound and Snider honestly inform the reader that they predict variation of the speed of the photons identical to the variation of the speed of material objects in free fall:

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf

 

[Pentcho Valev]

"After He Said Einstein Was Wrong, Physicist Henry Hill Learned That Fame's Benefits Are Relative...A major proof of Einstein's theory involved a peculiarity in the planet Mercury's orbit, which he attributed to the distortion of space created by the great mass of the sun. Central to the proof was an assumption that the sun is perfectly spherical. But Hill's observations showed that the sun is not perfectly round, a discrepancy that Hill has said may be "Achilles tendon of the general theory." http://people.com/archive/after-he-...that-fames-benefits-are-relative-vol-18-no-10

Has the scientific community ever discussed this? No. They are absolutely sure a heretic named Henry Hill has never existed. In post-truth science, people like Henry Hill automatically become unpersons:

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist : he had never existed."

 

[Pentcho Valev]

The deSitter-Brecher hoax:

"The de Sitter effect was described by de Sitter in 1913 and used to support the special theory of relativity against a competing 1908 emission theory by Walter Ritz that postulated a variable speed of light. De Sitter showed that Ritz's theory predicted that the orbits of binary stars would appear more eccentric than consistent with experiment and with the laws of mechanics, however, the experimental result was negative. This was confirmed by Brecher in 1977 by observing the x-rays spectrum." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Sitter_double_star_experiment

Here is Brecher's paper:

K. Brecher, "Is the Speed of Light Independent of the Velocity of the Source?" http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Brecher-K-1977.pdf

Brecher (originally de Sitter) applies the emission theory to a model of his and deduces some "peculiar effects". Then the argument is essentially like this: Have the "peculiar effects" ever been observed? No. We will be waiting until they are observed but in the meantime Newton's emission theory (more precisely, the tenet that the speed of light depends on the speed of the emitter) is refuted!

A refutation of this kind can only be operative in post-truth science. Note that it cannot be criticized - parameters of double star systems are generally unknown so critics could not know why the "peculiar effects" predicted by Brecher's model are absent.

The speed of light VARIES with the speed of the emitter, as posited by Newton's theory and unequivocally proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 (prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor):

"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

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

 

[Pentcho Valev]

The Hafele-Keating hoax:

J. C. Hafele, Richard E. Keating, Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains: "Because the earth rotates, standard clocks distributed at rest on the surface are not suitable in this case as candidates for coordinate clocks of an inertial space. Nevertheless, the relative timekeeping behavior of terrestrial clocks can be evaluated by reference to hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17779917

By "hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space" Hafele and Keating mean clocks at rest with respect to the center of the Earth. But such clocks are neither "nonrotating" nor "inertial". All the clocks in the experiment, real or imaginary, rotate around the Sun, around the center of the Galaxy, experience varying gravitational fields and accelerations. This means that Hafele and Keating checked the reading of a non-inertial clock against the reading of another non-inertial clock, knowing very little about the parameters of both non-inertialities, and found that the predictions of Divine Albert's Divine Theory were gloriously confirmed.

Conclusion: Hafele and Keating fabricated their results.

The Hafele-Keating experiment is easy to repeat but Einsteinians are reluctant to do so. Why? Because in this case the fraud is extremely easy to expose. Hafele and Keating managed to hide their sleight of hand from critical eyes but that was a one-time luck.

 

[danR]

The Hafele-Keating hoax:

J. C. Hafele, Richard E. Keating, Around-the-World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains: "Because the earth rotates, standard clocks distributed at rest on the surface are not suitable in this case as candidates for coordinate clocks of an inertial space. Nevertheless, the relative timekeeping behavior of terrestrial clocks can be evaluated by reference to hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17779917

By "hypothetical coordinate clocks of an underlying nonrotating (inertial) space" Hafele and Keating mean clocks at rest with respect to the center of the Earth. But such clocks are neither "nonrotating" nor "inertial". All the clocks in the experiment, real or imaginary, rotate around the Sun, around the center of the Galaxy, experience varying gravitational fields and accelerations. This means that Hafele and Keating checked the reading of a non-inertial clock against the reading of another non-inertial clock, knowing very little about the parameters of both non-inertialities, and found that the predictions of Divine Albert's Divine Theory were gloriously confirmed.

Conclusion: Hafele and Keating fabricated their results.

The Hafele-Keating experiment is easy to repeat but Einsteinians are reluctant to do so. Why? Because in this case the fraud is extremely easy to expose. Hafele and Keating managed to hide their sleight of hand from critical eyes but that was a one-time luck.

The only pertinent factors in the H&K experiment were the clocks' different heights relative to the Earth and their motions relative to each other. Everything else is common to both.

 

[Pentcho Valev]

The only pertinent factors in the H&K experiment were the clocks' different heights relative to the Earth and their motions relative to each other. Everything else is common to both.

Judging only from "their motions relative to each other", which one is the faster, which one is the slower, and why?