The Thim's experiment (1) is a nice try by a gifted experimentalist to contradict the Special theory of Relativity. However the interpretation is totally wrong since the emitter and receiver have no relative motion and therefore no Doppler shift should be expected.

It is true that the anti-SR club is maintaining so much confusion that they are unable to apply SR consistently to this experiment to prove their point. Yet it is quite simple: no relative motion implies no Doppler shift, also in SR. They are just unable to use SR properly.


(1) http://www.atomicprecision.com/blog/wp-filez/Thim%20-%20Absence%20of%20the%20relativistic%20Doppler%20effect%20...%20.pdf

But there is relative motion (emitter does not move and receiver rotates).

Thim made another mistake as well: EM waves do not propagate uniderectionally, they reflect randomly of the walls of his enclosure. As such, they interfere with each other. He is ignorant of the fact that one needs uniderectional, non self-interfering waves in order to have a correct measurement of the Doppler effect.

Nonrelativist: But there is relative motion (emitter does not move and receiver rotates).

Ted: This is the OTHER error in the Thim "experiment". The two counter-rotating disks act as intermediate "moving mirrors" in reflecting the EM waves. But the receiver is AT rest with respect to the emmiter. A correct application of SR shows that there is NO Doppler shift (because the receiver is at rest wrt the transmitter). The "moving mirrors" (aka the rotating disks) do not introduce any Doppler shift. Thim is just another antirelativistic idiot.

Ted: This is the OTHER error

No errors just religious belief on your part.

You mean the utter stupidity on your part, right?

your religious faith distorts your perception of reality, and gives you a foul mouth that needs soap.

Your mouth is full of sh^t

no, you are

Lol ...

No errors just religious belief on your part.

For sure 90% of the antirelativists are US Christian fundamentalists.
They are very tolerant and open as long as you reject the "absurdities of modern physics" (sic).
They are spreading disinformation in science, specially physics and biology and might cause a big damage to the US if they were not obviously incompetent, irrelevant and marginal.
The most honest of them simply believe God created time, they mean one God created a mono-time.
The others pretend Einstein did math mistakes.
Lol

Chronology of Einsteins Mistakes

1905 Mistake in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity
1905 Failure to consider Michelson-Morley experiment
1905 Mistake in transverse mass of high-speed particles

1905 Multiple mistakes in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of liquids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules

1905 Mistakes in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light
1905 Mistake in the first proof of E = mc2
1906 Mistakes in the second, third, and fourth proofs of E = mc2
1907 Mistake in the synchronization procedure for accelerated clocks
1907 Mistakes in the Principle of Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration
1911 Mistake in the first calculation of the bending of light
1913 Mistake in the first attempt at a theory of general relativity
1914 Mistake in the fifth proof of E = mc2
1915 Mistake in the Einstein-de Haas experiment
1915 Mistakes in several attempts at theories of general relativity
1916 Mistake in the interpretation of Machs principle
1917 Mistake in the introduction of the cosmological constant (the biggest blunder)
1919 Mistakes in two attempts to modify general relativity
1925 Mistakes and more mistakes in the attempts to formulate a unified theory
1927 Mistakes in discussions with Bohr on quantum uncertainties
1933 Mistakes in interpretation of quantum mechanics (Does God play dice?)
1934 Mistake in the sixth proof of E = mc2
1939 Mistake in the interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and gravitational collapse (the black hole)
1946 Mistake in the seventh proof of E = mc2

... mistakes ...... mistakes ...... mistakes ...

saying without proving,
ridiculing to flatter the fundamentalists and the ignorants

I am going to check it out; you are just being dismissive without looking; that's biased of you. The book is Einstein's Mistakes by Ohanian. Ohanian has written quite a few respected books on relativity.

If you had referenced the book in the first post, I could have check this particular book before I could answer.

Anyway, there are many other reasons to make big claims about Einstein.
For example: selling better.
Why should I check any claim by any people, from cranks to journalists including fundamentalists?
At first sight, the "Ohanian" published many very standard books where he is very mainstream apparently. Maybe this mistake-book is a bold title without real content?

>>Why should I check any claim by any people, from cranks to journalists including fundamentalists?

Believe whatever prejudices you like then.

Have you read the book yourself then, at least?

Just read this:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926756.600-review-ieinsteins-mistakesi-by-hans-ohanian.html

Clearly, myself, I will not read the book.
It is not about any mistake in the Special Theory of Relativity.
It does not contradict any main result from SR or GR.

It is only about history seen from the side of gossip with a selling title.
Just no relation to what is debated here.

excusing Ohanian's historical mistakes as not being relevant to the maths mistakes of Einstein, the review goes on to point out that maths mistakes of Einstein are well known to specialists; thats contrary to Einstein's fanclub here where Saint Einstein is treated as infallible-

relevant part of review:

Specialists are already aware of the many mistakes Einstein made, even if the news has yet to reach the average physics student, let alone the lay admirer. In 2005, Physics Today featured "Einstein's mistakes", a frank but highly respectful article by Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, which generated a large and approving response from physicists, including a letter from Ohanian. In it, Ohanian chides, "[Einstein] should have recognized that the constancy of the speed of light had to be established by experiment, not by stipulation."

Einstein's most prominent mistake was his "cosmological constant" - an extra term that he added to the field equations of general relativity in 1917 in order to uphold his assumption that the universe is static. Einstein himself declared this his "biggest blunder" and publicly rejected it in 1931 after observing the astronomical evidence for the universe's expansion - though much more recent evidence suggests that it may not have been a mistake after all. Also well known are his mistaken post-1926 opposition to quantum theory, and his final decades of fruitless searching for a unified theory.

Less familiar are Einstein's mistakes in formulating both special and general relativity, such as: a mistake in the clock synchronisation procedure on which he based special relativity; repeated mistakes in his various proofs of E = mc2; mistakes in the principle of equivalence of gravitation and acceleration; a mistake in his first calculation of the bending of light; and several mistakes in his attempts at theories of general relativity. Some of these mistakes were highly productive, Ohanian says. The first "led him to introduce the postulate about the constant speed of light, which gave him a shortcut to the Lorentz transformation, the length contraction, the time dilation, and a wealth of other new results".

Einstein has been dead for 54 years. Yet, his legacy endures.
What is tough to explain is why are sh^theads like you still hating a man who has been dead for 54 years? Is it envy?

excusing Ohanian's historical mistakes as not being ...

What is really relevant is the Special Theory of Relativity, and the GR Theory.
Ohanian has written texbooks on that.
Better read these instead of newspaper science.

Ted
Einstein has been dead for 54 years. Yet, his legacy endures.
***********************************



http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/WGDE.html

Because of:

Quote:
In this day and age it is impossible to publish a new scientific theory through the established media. A book publisher will not even read your manuscript unless you have first gone through the peer review process. Without a healthy dose of authority behind your submission it will remain a promise. Therefore, if you wish to challenge the establishment's version of light, gravity, the atom, electricity, magnetism, and other natural phenomena, it is next to impossible to do it all at once. You will first be required to submit a series of papers establishing a milestone in each category through official channels. One problem with this process is that it takes about two years to publish a paper! This means that if you have 50 new ideas never before considered by the establishment, it would take you about 100 years to publish them if one is founded upon another. A more formidable obstacle is religion. The peer review system is inordinately biased in favor of the religion of mathematical Physics. Imagine submitting a paper arguing against God to a secret inquisition board comprised of 3 Christians, 2 Muslims, and 1 Buddhist. ]What are the chances of getting published?

Anon's quoter: In this day and age it is impossible to publish a new scientific theory through the established media. A book publisher will not even read your manuscript unless you have first gone through the peer review process.

cinci: Peer review includes reading the manuscript.
*************************


Anon's quoter: Without a healthy dose of authority behind your submission it will remain a promise. Therefore, if you wish to challenge the establishment's version of light, gravity, the atom, electricity, magnetism, and other natural phenomena, it is next to impossible to do it all at once. You will first be required to submit a series of papers establishing a milestone in each category through official channels. One problem with this process is that it takes about two years to publish a paper! This means that if you have 50 new ideas never before considered by the establishment, it would take you about 100 years to publish them if one is founded upon another.

cinci: Einstein published 5 mew ideas in one year when nobody knew who he was. You don'thave to wait until they publish them.
************************

Anon's quoter: A more formidable obstacle is religion. The peer review system is inordinately biased in favor of the religion of mathematical Physics.

cinci: Mathematical physics isn't a religion. Do you propose to just talk about your ideas?
*********************************

Anon's quoter: Imagine submitting a paper arguing against God to a secret inquisition board comprised of 3 Christians, 2 Muslims, and 1 Buddhist. What are the chances of getting published?

Anon's quoter: If it has merit, probably pretty good,

Besides all this is nonsense. I am reading a book now by John Moffatt called "Reinventing Gravity" where he is at odds with general relativity and most of the cosmolgists in the world. I already read one by Jao Magueo whose theme was variable speed of light.
**********************************

Anon: In this day and age it is impossible to publish a new scientific
theory through the established media.


Ted: First off, the above is not true. Second off, what does it all have to do with your hated and envy of Einstein, a$$hole?

wheres the smiley; are you a bit grump today?

cinci: Einstein published 5 mew ideas in one year when nobody knew who he was. You don'thave to wait until they publish them.
************************

It's true, but there is only one small problem - all his ideas are wrong.
For example he found E \approx mc², not E=mc². And many others found the same before him (Poincaré).

@Ted
I don't know why I should hate him?

anon: I don't know why I should hate him?

Ted: because you envy him, idiot

cinci: Einstein published 4 mew ideas in one year when nobody knew who he was. You don'thave to wait until they publish them.

Anon: It's true, but there is only one small problem - all his ideas are wrong.
For example he found E \approx mc², not E=mc². And many others found the same before him (Poincaré).

cinci: Well I was wrong, it was only four ideas. And no, E=mc^2 isn't approximate. His explanation of Brownian movement was not wrong and neither is the concept of the photon or special relativity.

It's interesting that everybody at the time credited Eisntein with his work including the people you say did it before he did. 100 years later you know more about the period than the folks who lived it. Do you have a time machine?
***********************

cinci:Do you have a time machine?

yes, you can get them from Einstein; only thing is they don't work; like the rest of his theory.

Anon: yes, you can get them from Einstein; only thing is they don't work; like the rest of his theory.


cinci: So you know relativity is wrong....and you think you have a time machine....this explains a lot.
*****************************