Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
IN 1907 EINSTEIN KNEW SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS WRONG
Replies:
3
Last Post:
Dec 6, 2012 5:40 AM




Re: IN 1907 EINSTEIN KNEW SPECIAL RELATIVITY WAS WRONG
Posted:
Dec 6, 2012 5:40 AM


What Einsteiniana's illuminati really think of special relativity:
http://www.amazon.com/FasterThanSpeedLightSpeculation/dp/0738205257 Joao Magueijo, Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation, p. 250: "Lee [Smolin] and I discussed these paradoxes at great length for many months, starting in January 2001. We would meet in cafés in South Kensington or Holland Park to mull over the problem. THE ROOT OF ALL THE EVIL WAS CLEARLY SPECIAL RELATIVITY. All these paradoxes resulted from well known effects such as length contraction, time dilation, or E=mc^2, all basic predictions of special relativity. And all denied the possibility of establishing a welldefined border, common to all observers, capable of containing new quantum gravitational effects."
Are illuminati going to officially reject "the root of all the evil"? Impossible. They would rather defend it at any cost. Apart from being "the root of all the evil", special relativity has always been illuminati's moneyspinner, and that is the only thing that really matters. For that reason Joao Magueijo will always teach that the MichelsonMorley experiment has disproved the assumption that the emitter's speed adds to the emitted light's speed, knowing that this is a blatant lie:
http://www.amazon.com/FasterThanSpeedLightSpeculation/dp/0738205257 Faster Than the Speed of Light, Joao Magueijo: "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 MichelsonMorley 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!"
Cleverer illuminati know that nobody cares what the MichelsonMorley experiment has proved or disproved and accordingly see no danger in telling the truth:
http://philsciarchive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf John Norton: "The MichelsonMorley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
http://www.amazon.com/RelativityItsRootsBaneshHoffmann/dp/0486406768 "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 MichelsonMorley 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



