1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.ASTRO

  • Einsteinians : Absolute Dishonesty or Absolute Stupidity?

    From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Thu Aug 11 03:12:10 2022
    Einsteinians inform the gullible world that, even if the speed of light is variable, 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: "Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, dé
    sormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en
    est rien..." http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf

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

    Pentcho Valev

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Lou@21:1/5 to Pentcho Valev on Thu Aug 11 04:52:50 2022
    On Thursday, 11 August 2022 at 11:12:12 UTC+1, Pentcho Valev wrote:
    Einsteinians inform the gullible world that, even if the speed of light is variable, 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: "Il se pourrait même que de futures mesures mettent en évidence une masse infime, mais non-nulle, du photon ; la lumière alors n'irait plus à la "vitesse de la lumière", ou, plus précisément, la vitesse de la lumière, d�
    �sormais variable, ne s'identifierait plus à la vitesse limite invariante. Les procédures opérationnelles mises en jeu par le "second postulat" deviendraient caduques ipso facto. La théorie elle-même en serait-elle invalidée ? Heureusement, il n'en
    est rien..." http://o.castera.free.fr/pdf/Chronogeometrie.pdf

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

    Pentcho Valev
    Fortunately for physics...light is not nor has ever been observed to be a photon.
    Albert made this fantasy up in 1905 to pave the way for his other relativity fantasy
    later that year. (Ie One fantasy can’t survive without the other.)
    But unfortunately in 1929, the low IQ physics community having just ditched one
    nonsense theory(aether) for another (photon +relativity ), were not prepared to accept
    that Hubbles redshift/distance relationship just invalidated all of Einsteins nonsense.
    Because if they did admit that the *empirical* observation of light losing frequency over
    distance ruled out the fantasy of the photon which couldn’t change frequency over
    distance....then all the con artists of the day would lose their well paid university jobs
    and have to return their nobel prize money.
    At which point to cover their butts, they invented a new field of physics. BBT. Their excuse was that those who stuck with a non expanding model couldn’t explain how light “lost” energy over distance! Citing their absurd argument that a “photon” of one frequency is not the same energy as a “photon” of 1/2 that frequency.What a load of nonsense.
    Just because light loses frequency over distance does not mean that it has
    to lose energy over distance. Dont forget that light isn’t a photon and
    that wave energy emitted between 100-200nm is equal to the same
    energy when redshifted to 200-400nm. How? Simple
    The redshifted light is twice the range in manometers than the emitted
    light. So it’s energy per frequency is halved...but it’s total measured range in nm is doubled. And no relativistic photon fantasist can prove otherwise.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Pentcho Valev@21:1/5 to All on Fri Aug 12 05:46:26 2022
    In the Einstein cult 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/briankoberlein/2017/11/09/the-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."

    https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/images-profile-flow/400/images-medium-large/split-personality-computer-artwork-david-mack.jpg

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

    Pentcho Valev

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