🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 16, 1:23 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ETHERISTS:
>
> http://www.eng.uwi.tt/depts/elec/staff/sgift/special_relativity.pdf
> The Invalidation of a Sacred Principle of Modern Physics
> Stephan J.G. Gift
> "The principle underpinning modern physics, which states that the
> speed of light is
> constant and independent of the motion of the source and the observer,
> is shown
> to be invalid. (...) For a stationary observer O, the stationary light
> source S emits light at speed c, wavelength Lo, and frequency Fo given
> by Fo=c/Lo. If the observer moves toward S at speed v, then again
> based on classical analysis, the speed of light relative to the moving
> observer is (c + v) and not c as required by Einstein's law of light
> propagation. Hence the observer intercepts wave-fronts of light at a
> frequency fA, which is higher than Fo, as is observed, and is given by
> fA = (c+v)/Lo > Fo. (...) In light of this elementary result
> invalidating STR, it is difficult to understand why this invalid
> theory has been (and continues to be) accepted for the past 100 years.
> It is time to reject STR with its incorrect light speed invariance
> principle long pointed out by Ives, and return to the Lorentz-Maxwell
> ether-based theory elucidated by Ives and summarized by Erlichson."
>
    Ives was wrong. He made a prediction about circular optical
cavities. I chapters in a book he wrote about relativity. I
immediately found several errors.
     I remember the circular cavity argument best. Ives claimed that a
circular cavity would not show the Sagnac effect They make fiber optic
compasses now that use the Sagnac effect. These are circular, and they
work. There are also some theoretical errors to be used in his
"circular cavity" model. Ives made several other errors.
     I also remember his emotional rant against Einstein and all his
followers. It was a lot like yours. He spent a lot of time railing
against those blind followers of Einstein. This did not belong in a
technical summary. So in addition to the scientific errors, he proved
he was not objective.