EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION OF EINSTEIN'S RELATIVITY
in [Logic]
|
Prev: turning probability combinations and permutations into geometrical concepts #4.20 & #236 Correcting Math & Atom Totality
Next: geometrical-probability theory #4.22 & #238 Correcting Math & Atom Totality
From: Pentcho Valev on 26 Jul 2010 08:39 If an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short container, and if an Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the bug squashed while the bug sees itself alive and kicking, then the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's relativity and refutes Newton's emission theory of light: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html "The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved." If an infinitely long object CANNOT be trapped inside an infinitely short container, and if both the bug and the Einsteinian travelling with the rivet see the bug alive and kicking, then the Michelson- Morley experiment confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes Einstein's relativity: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC RELATIVITY AND ITS ROOTS by Banesh Hoffmann "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." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 27 Jul 2010 01:00 An emitter on top of a tower of height h sends light towards the ground. The light reaches the ground with speed c'=c(1+gh/c^2) according to Newton's emission theory of light (an equation adopted by Einstein in the period 1907-1915), and with speed c'=c(1+2gh/c^2) according to Einstein's final version of general relativity. In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift factor to be 1+gh/c^2. In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world this experimental result would confirm Newton's emission theory of light and refute Einstein's final version of general relativity. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the result gloriously confirms any version of Einstein's relativity while Newton's emission theory of light is not worth mentioning. Pentcho Valev wrote: If an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short container, and if an Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the bug squashed while the bug sees itself alive and kicking, then the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's relativity and refutes Newton's emission theory of light: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html "The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved." If an infinitely long object CANNOT be trapped inside an infinitely short container, and if both the bug and the Einsteinian travelling with the rivet see the bug alive and kicking, then the Michelson- Morley experiment confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes Einstein's relativity: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC RELATIVITY AND ITS ROOTS by Banesh Hoffmann "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." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Pentcho Valev on 28 Jul 2010 01:01 Cosmic-ray muons crashing into an obstacle quickly disintegrate. Cosmic-ray muons that do not crash live longer. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world crashing muons are obviously analogous to the twin at rest. Non-crashing muons are analogous to the travelling twin. Conclusion (in Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world): Einstein's relativity correctly predicts that, when the travelling twin returns, he is younger than the twin at rest. Pentcho Valev wrote: An emitter on top of a tower of height h sends light towards the ground. The light reaches the ground with speed c'=c(1+gh/c^2) according to Newton's emission theory of light (an equation adopted by Einstein in the period 1907-1915), and with speed c'=c(1+2gh/c^2) according to Einstein's final version of general relativity. In 1960 Pound and Rebka measured the gravitational redshift factor to be 1+gh/c^2. In a world different from Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world this experimental result would confirm Newton's emission theory of light and refute Einstein's final version of general relativity. In Einsteiniana's schizophrenic world the result gloriously confirms any version of Einstein's relativity while Newton's emission theory of light is not worth mentioning. If an infinitely long object can be trapped inside an infinitely short container, and if an Einsteinian travelling with the rivet sees the bug squashed while the bug sees itself alive and kicking, then the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms Einstein's relativity and refutes Newton's emission theory of light: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/barn_pole.html "These are the props. You own a barn, 40m long, with automatic doors at either end, that can be opened and closed simultaneously by a switch. You also have a pole, 80m long, which of course won't fit in the barn. Now someone takes the pole and tries to run (at nearly the speed of light) through the barn with the pole horizontal. Special Relativity (SR) says that a moving object is contracted in the direction of motion: this is called the Lorentz Contraction. So, if the pole is set in motion lengthwise, then it will contract in the reference frame of a stationary observer.....So, as the pole passes through the barn, there is an instant when it is completely within the barn. At that instant, you close both doors simultaneously, with your switch. Of course, you open them again pretty quickly, but at least momentarily you had the contracted pole shut up in your barn. The runner emerges from the far door unscathed.....If the doors are kept shut the rod will obviously smash into the barn door at one end. If the door withstands this the leading end of the rod will come to rest in the frame of reference of the stationary observer. There can be no such thing as a rigid rod in relativity so the trailing end will not stop immediately and the rod will be compressed beyond the amount it was Lorentz contracted. If it does not explode under the strain and it is sufficiently elastic it will come to rest and start to spring back to its natural shape but since it is too big for the barn the other end is now going to crash into the back door and the rod will be trapped in a compressed state inside the barn." http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Relativ/bugrivet.html "The bug-rivet paradox is a variation on the twin paradox and is similar to the pole-barn paradox.....The end of the rivet hits the bottom of the hole before the head of the rivet hits the wall. So it looks like the bug is squashed.....All this is nonsense from the bug's point of view. The rivet head hits the wall when the rivet end is just 0.35 cm down in the hole! The rivet doesn't get close to the bug....The paradox is not resolved." If an infinitely long object CANNOT be trapped inside an infinitely short container, and if both the bug and the Einsteinian travelling with the rivet see the bug alive and kicking, then the Michelson- Morley experiment confirms Newton's emission theory of light and refutes Einstein's relativity: http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC RELATIVITY AND ITS ROOTS by Banesh Hoffmann "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." Pentcho Valev pvalev(a)yahoo.com
From: Arindam Banerjee on 28 Jul 2010 06:14
The important thing now is to understand why this bizarre theory of relativity at all took place. In the 19th century they had no idea of how the Sun and the stars produced their energy. Nor did they understand the energy produced from radio-activity - how did it not violated the sacred law of conservation of energy. e=mcc provided a seemingly convenient answer. A new law of physics, the law of conservation of mass and energy was formulated and accepted. The atomic bomb, based upon radioactivity, confirmed the earlier approaches which were made solid via public brainwashing and institutional pressure. Still, the Nobel Committee, to its vast credit, has not given the Nobel Prize in Physics to Stephen Hawking. Now if that was done, it would put the final seal of international approval on this most hideous fraud that is einsteinian relativity. Along with the equally shonky quantum theory, it has turned all theoretical physicists crazier than the craziest of demented bats and drooling mad hatters. The public is suitably schizophrenic, with no notion of ideals and principles that result from the stability of correct and absolute constructions, or at least attempts for same. The true gainers of lousy physics are the loony-doctors and all smooth-talking frauds. Well, things got to change, with the fundamental new equations e= 0.5mVVN(N-k), where e = free kinetic energy wrt base reference = E - E1 where E = 0.5m(NV)(NV), E1=0.5kmVVN, k>1 ; and the variability of light velocity (or that of any wave motion) in its medium (aether, air) is proved by the Doppler effect as f=c/lambda, where c=c(mu, ep)+v for light. Cheers, Arindam Banerjee |