Discussion:
Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics
Add Reply
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-16 11:47:40 UTC
Réponse
Permalink
Raw Message
Joao Magueijo: "In sharp contrast, the constancy of the speed of light has remain sacred, and the term "heresy" is occasionally used in relation to "varying speed of light theories". The reason is clear: the constancy of c, unlike the constancy of G or e, is the pillar of special relativity and thus of modern physics. Varying c theories are expected to cause much more structural damage to physics formalism than other varying constant theories." http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305457v3.pdf

"But the researchers said they spent a lot of time working on a theory that wouldn't destabilise our understanding of physics. "The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/12/06/speed-light-discovered/

This means that the following conditional is valid:

If Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate is false, modern physics is pseudoscience (true science was killed in 1905).

Is Einstein's constant-speed-of-light postulate false? Of course, this is obvious. Consider the following setup:

A light source emits a series of pulses equally distanced from one another. A stationary observer (receiver) measures the frequency:

Loading Image...

The observer starts moving with constant speed towards the light source and measures the frequency again:

Loading Image...

Premise 1 (Doppler effect; experimentally confirmed): The moving observer measures the frequency to be higher.

Premise 2 (obviously true): The formula

(measured frequency) = (speed of the pulses relative to the observer)/(distance between the pulses)

is correct.

Conclusion: The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is higher than relative to the stationary observer. In other words, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-16 15:56:16 UTC
Réponse
Permalink
Raw Message
Even the original version of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is OBVIOUSLY false:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
Albert Einstein, On the electrodynamics of moving bodies, 1905: "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body."

This independence from the state of motion of the light source is only conceivable if the motion of the source is able to change the wavelength - an ability existing for sound waves but not for light. The following two conditionals are both valid:

(A) If the motion of the source DOES change the wavelength, the frequency shifts the observer measures ARE NOT due to changes in the speed of light - Einstein's relativity is saved.

(B) If the motion of the source DOES NOT change the wavelength, the frequency shifts the observer measures ARE due to changes in the speed of light - Einstein's relativity has to be abandoned.

Einsteinians universally teach the antecedent of (A) of course:

http://www.fisica.net/relatividade/stephen_hawking_a_brief_history_of_time.pdf
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 3: "Now imagine a source of light at a constant distance from us, such as a star, emitting waves of light at a constant wavelength. Obviously the wavelength of the waves we receive will be the same as the wavelength at which they are emitted (the gravitational field of the galaxy will not be large enough to have a significant effect). Suppose now that the source starts moving toward us. When the source emits the next wave crest it will be nearer to us, so the distance between wave crests will be smaller than when the star was stationary."

However "shorter wavelength" implies that the speed of the wavecrests relative to the moving source is smaller than c - unlike the stationary source, the moving source is chasing the fleeing wavecrest, like the moving source of sound. This implication contradicts the principle of relativity - by measuring the speed of the emitted light, an observer at the source would know whether the source is stationary or moving. Accordingly, the underlying assumption - that the moving source emits shorter wavelength - has to be rejected. The moving source does not emit shorter wavelength - it emits faster light. If the speed of the source is v, the speed of the light relative to the observer is c'=c+v, in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
2017-06-17 11:17:22 UTC
Réponse
Permalink
Raw Message
"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)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

This means that in 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis) the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with the variable (dependent on the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light, and accordingly incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light predicted by the ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his 1905 second postulate. Yet Einsteinians almost universally teach the opposite - students are brainwashed into believing that the experiment gloriously confirmed the constant and refuted the variable speed of light:

http://www.berkeleyscience.com/relativity.htm
"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."

http://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257
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!"

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
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) and in describing what happens when things move at speeds close to the speed of light."

http://www.lecture-notes.co.uk/susskind/special-relativity/lecture-1/principles-of-special-relativity/
Leonard Susskind: "One of the predictions of Maxwell's equations is that the velocity of electromagnetic waves, or light, is always measured to have the same value, regardless of the frame in which it is measured. (...) So, in Galilean relativity, we have c'=c-v and the speed of light in the moving frame should be slower than in the stationary frame, directly contradicting Maxwell. Scientists before Einstein thought that Galilean relativity was correct and so supposed that there had to exist a special, universal frame (called the aether) in which Maxwell's equations would be correct. However, over time and many experiments (including Michelson-Morley) it was shown that the speed of light did not depend on the velocity of the observer measuring it, so that c'=c."

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), 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."

So the truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment is widely known (it can even be seen in Wikipedia) and yet Einsteinians brazenly teach the lie. And the world seems to accept this as normal. How is that possible? In Einstein's schizophrenic world the old principle of Ignatius of Loyola is very popular - everybody finds this principle perfectly reasonable:

Ignatius of Loyola: "That we may be altogether of the same mind and in conformity with the Church herself, if she shall have defined anything to be black which appears to our eyes to be white, we ought in like manner to pronounce it to be black."

Pentcho Valev

Loading...