Are Theoretical Physicists Criminals?

Feb 9, 2023
Below John Norton exposes theoretical physicists ("later writers") as deliberate liars. They use the Michelson-Morley experiment "as support for the light postulate of special relativity", knowing that this experiment is "fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate":

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate."

The situation is even more dramatic. Theoretical physicists know that, in 1887, prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor, the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light posited by the ether theory and later "borrowed" by Einstein as his 1905 second, "light" postulate:

"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)."

Albert Einstein: "I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether."

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

The deliberate lie:

"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."

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!"

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)..."

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."

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."

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."

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."

Feb 9, 2023
"The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration completed an end-to-end system test of their detection capabilities at their recent joint collaboration meeting in Arcadia, CA [in 2011]. Analysis of data from LIGO and Virgo's most recent observation run revealed evidence of the elusive signal from a neutron star spiraling into a black hole. The collaboration knew that the "detection" could be a "blind injection" -- a fake signal added to the data without telling the analysts, to test the detector and analysis. Nonetheless, the collaboration proceeded under the assumption that the signal was real, and wrote and approved a scientific paper reporting the ground-breaking discovery. A few moments later, according to plan, it was revealed that the signal was indeed a blind injection. While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves. LIGO and Virgo scientists are looking forward to observations with the advanced detectors which are expected to contain many real signals from the distant reaches of the universe."

How can the "detection capabilities" be tested by adding fake data to the system? It is like testing the detection capabilities of a radio music player by inserting music in the device. There is only one thing that can be tested in this way: the scientific community's readiness to be fooled.

Before 2015, LIGO fakers diligently rehearsed. They would secretly inject false data, inform the scientific community about a great discovery, study scientists' reactions, finally fix noticed Achilles heels.

The dress rehearsal occurred in 2010. A few "expert administrators" injected fake data, deceived the whole world and misled astronomers who wasted time and money in search of the electromagnetic counterpart. Remarkably, "this became particularly useful starting in September 2015":

"...a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data, maintaining strict confidentiality. They did just that in the early morning hours of 16 September 2010. Automated data analyses alerted us to an extraordinary event within eight minutes of data collection, and within 45 minutes we had our astronomer colleagues with optical telescopes imaging the area we estimated the gravitational wave to have come from. Since it came from the direction of the Canis Major constellation, this event picked up the nickname of the "Big Dog Event". For months we worked on vetting this candidate gravitational wave detection, extracting parameters that described the source, and even wrote a paper. Finally, at the next collaboration meeting, after all the work had been cataloged and we voted unanimously to publish the paper the next day. However, it was revealed immediately after the vote to be an injection and that our estimated parameters for the simulated source were accurate. Again, there was no detection, but we learned a great deal about our abilities to know when we detected a gravitational wave and that we can do science with the data. This became particularly useful starting in September 2015."

In the physics establishment, only Natalia Kiriushcheva found courage to expose (more precisely, to hint at) the truth. And the truth is that LIGO's gravitational waves are fakes:

"On September 16, 2010, a false signal - a so-called "blind injection" - was fed into both the Ligo and Virgo systems as part of an exercise to "test ... detection capabilities". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. But take a look at the visualisation of the faked signal, says Dr Kiriushcheva, and compare it to the image apparently showing the collision of the twin black holes, seen on the second page of the recently-published discovery paper. "They look very, very similar," she says. "It means that they knew exactly what they wanted to get and this is suspicious for us: when you know what you want to get from science, usually you can get it." The apparent similarity is more curious because the faked event purported to show not a collision between two black holes, but the gravitational waves created by a neutron star spiralling into a black hole. The signals appear so similar, in fact, that Dr Kiriushcheva questions whether THE "TRUE" SIGNAL MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN AN ECHO OF THE FAKE, "STORED IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEM from when they turned off the equipment five years before"."

Kiriushcheva immediately disappeared from public debate, converted into an unperson perhaps:

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed."
Feb 9, 2023
Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two:

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."

Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light:

Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity."

Possible explanations:

(A) Thorne knows that the scientific community is paralyzed by brainwashing so lying blatantly is safe and even profitable.

(B) Thorne doesn't know what he is talking about.

My estimate:

(A) 95% true.

(B) 5% true.
Feb 9, 2023
Assume that a light source emits equidistant pulses and an observer starts moving towards the source:


Einsteinians want the speed of light relative to the observer to remain constant, but for this to happen, the motion of the observer should somehow change (decrease) the distance between subsequent pulses. And, obviously, the motion of the observer CANNOT change the distance between subsequent pulses.

How do Einsteinians solve the problem? There is a simple directive:

When you teach Doppler effect in light, avoid moving observer - talk about moving source only. If you still decide to teach moving observer, don't discuss speed of light relative to the observer and distance between pulses (wavelength) simultaneously.

The directive is universally obeyed. So far I have found only three exceptions:

Professor Martin White, UC Berkeley: "...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength...The same principle applies for light as well as for sound. In detail the amount of shift depends a little differently on the speed, since we have to do the calculation in the context of special relativity. But in general it's just the same: if you're approaching a light source you see shorter wavelengths (a blue-shift), while if you're moving away you see longer wavelengths (a red-shift)."

John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to have increased (and correspondingly for the wavelength - the distance between crests - to have decreased)."

Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed."
To my knowledge, the first Newtonian approach to the problem of the gravitational bending of light was undertaken by Johann G. von Soldner, in early 19th century. Soldner’s pioneering work was submitted for publication in 1801 and printed in 1804.

Following Einstein's prediction of the gravitational bending of light, and in the course of experimental work aimed at its verification, only sporadic and at times misleading references have been made to Johann Georg von Soldner.

In a paper published in 1804, Soldner derived the gravitational bending of light on the classical Newtonian basis and calculated its value around the sun with remarkable accuracy. Soldner's paper, inaccessible then even in German, is now presented in English translation and put in the perspective of Soldner's life and the science of his day and ours.

Soldner (1804) used Newton’s theory of gravitation to make his calculation because Newton’s
gravitational theory was the only theory of gravitation available at the time 0.87" . This calculation assumes that light particles have a mass m, and they move at the speed c = 2.99792458 × 108ms−1, so that the total kinetic energy of the light particle is mc2/2 just as would be the case for an ordinary particle travelling at the speed of light.

The next to calculate the bending of light by a gravitational field was Albert Einstein (1911). In 1907, Einstein laid down the foundations of his General Theory of Relativity (GTR ) when he formulated the Principle of Equivalence, a principle upon which the GTR is founded.

Independently of the work of Soldner (1804), using this principle in 1911 in his paper entitled “On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light”, Einstein deduced that a gravitational field must be capable of bending a ray of light. Though Einstein's reasoning and the calculation differ markedly, his [Einstein's] result was essentially the same as that of Soldner (1804), that is, a light ray grazing the limb of the Sun must undergo a deflection of about 0.87".

Einstein (1911)’s calculation did not take into account the curvature of space but included only the effects of mass on the time dimension of the four dimensional spacetime continuum.

The net deflection angle has a very simple expression:


Equation 1: The net deflection of a photon that grazes the Sun.
where M is the Sun’s mass and b is called the impact parameter


The explicit expressions for the three relevant components of the momentum p of the photon are easily calculated using the Schwarzschild components of the metric and Eq. 6:


The explicit expressions for the components of the momentum of the photon.

The figure indicates important elements such as turning points (where dr/dλ=0), forbidden regions (where E< V), and circular orbits (where dV²/dr=0).


To obtain φ(r) for photons that traverse the gravitational field of the Sun. It turns out that this is easily accomplished simply by dividing the φ-component of the momentum (the angular momentum) by the square root . We get:


In Newtonian mechanics, it is straightforward to show that b is the minimum value of the radial distance r (when deflection is absent). Hence b is the “offset” of the photon’s trajectory compared with a parallel trajectory moving in the radial direction.

The deflection of the photon is illustrated below (together with some relevant comments):

Figure 6: The bending of the photon’s trajectory when it traverses the gravitational field of the Sun.

A quick calculation shows that the net deflection is indeed given by Eq. 1 above:


Figure 7: The renowned English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician Arthur Eddington, leader of the team that first confirmed Einstein’s prediction of Δφ (right) (source). One of Eddington’s photographs of the famous 1919 solar eclipse experiment (source).

Substituting the mass of the Sun and using the radius of the Sun as the impact parameter b (see Schutz) we obtain the maximum deflection which is approximately equal to 1.75". This result was first confirmed in a famous experiment performed by a British team led by the renowned English astronomer, physicist, and mathematician Arthur Eddington in 1919.





The modern concept of the gravitational deflection of light is very much an Einsteinian idea, though traces of the idea can be found in Newton’s Query 1, namely, “Do not Bodies act upon Light at a distance, and by their action bend its Rays, and is not this action (cæteris paribus) strongest at the least distance?” There is still the question of why Newton did not theorise the effect of light ray deflection by a massive heavenly body. Soldner, later, says that if the Earth was replaced by the sun, the maximal deflection of the light arriving on the celestial body, the angle ω would be 0.84 (The light follows only an arm of the hyperbola). If we double the value of 0’’84, (to take into account the 2 arms of the hyperbola), Soldner finds the right value of the deflection of the light passing near the sun, which is 1”64, based on the then known values of the masses, of the radius and of the speeds in 1801. Today, the deflection is known to be 1.75" based on the current values available to Einstein and us.

tangents deflection.png
A representation of the path of the light with a deflection over the entire trajectory.