Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the wavelength shortened but you don't see the speed changed" https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296

"Thus, the moving observer sees a wave possessing the same wavelength [...] but a different frequency [...] to that seen by the stationary observer." http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/315/Waveshtml/node41.html

Which statement is true? In Einsteinian physics this question is meaningless. Both statements are acceptable:

George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them."

https://render.fineartamerica.com/images/images-profile-flow/400/images-medium-large/split-personality-computer-artwork-david-mack.jpg

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Kip Thorne: Newton's theory predicted no deflection:

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." http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings

Sabine Hossenfelder: Newton's theory did predict deflection:

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." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html

All theoretical physicists (Thorne and Hossenfelder included): Who cares?

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

In Einsteinian physics thesis and antithesis harmoniously coexist (doublethink). Theoretical physicists believe that the mass-energy equivalence formula E=mc² was gloriously derived by Einstein in 1905 and at the same time they admit that the formula has nothing to do with Einstein's relativity:

Brian Koberlein: "This led Henri Poincaré to propose non-electromagnetic stresses to hold the electron together. When he calculated the energy of these stresses, he found it amounted to a fourth of an electron's total mass. Thus, the "actual" mass of the electron due to its electric charge alone must be m=E/c². Poincaré's paper deriving this result was published in June of 1905, just a few months before Einstein's paper. Although the equation is often attributed to Einstein's 1905 paper, Einstein didn't actually derive the equation from his theory of relativity." https://www.forbes.com/sites/briankoberlein/2017/11/09/the-history-of-einsteins-most-famous-equation/

Hans C. Ohanian: "Although Einstein's name is closely linked with the celebrated relation E=mc² between mass and energy, a critical examination of the more than half dozen "proofs" of this relation that Einstein produced over a span of forty years reveals that all these proofs suffer from mistakes. Einstein introduced unjustified assumptions, committed fatal errors in logic, or adopted low-speed, restrictive approximations. He never succeeded in producing a valid general proof applicable to a realistic system with arbitrarily large internal speeds." https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0805/0805.1400.pdf

Philip Ball: "The biggest revelation for me was not so much seeing that there were several well-founded precursors for the equivalence of mass and energy, but finding that this equivalence seems to have virtually nothing to do with special relativity. Tony Rothman said to me that "I've long maintained that the conventional history of science, as presented in the media, textbooks and by the stories scientists tell themselves is basically a collection of fairy tales." I'd concur with that." http://philipball.blogspot.com/2011/08/did-einstein-discover-emc2.html

See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

> Kip Thorne: "If you move toward the [light] source, you see the
wavelength
> shortened but you don't see the speed changed"

he should have say not "see" but *you_assume_the_speed_not_changed*.
That's the correct procedure.