info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
MAXWELL AND EINSTEIN'S LIGHT POSTULATE
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Aug 20, 2013, 2:19:12 AM8/20/13
to
99% of Einsteinians all over the world teach the following fundamental lie:
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/Summer12/PHY2054C/lect15-ch27__2.pdf
"He [Maxwell] also showed the speed of light is independent of the motion of both the source and the observer."
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~gfl/lecture/OldNotes/GeneralRelativity2005/Lecture1.pdf
"As Maxwell's equations provide a single wave solution, with a velocity c, Einstein proposed the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light: The velocity of light in free space is the same for all inertial observers."
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."
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, 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."
1% of Einsteinians all over the world teach the truth about Maxwell and the speed of light (according to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer):
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
JOHN NORTON: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."
http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/XML/db/csphysique/metadata/LOM_CSP_relat.xml
Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."
In fact, Einstein discovered his 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate by looking at the Lorentz transform (there was no other source). The constancy of the speed of light was a consequence of the Lorentz transform but Einstein changed the order - the constancy became an initial postulate and the Lorentz transform a consequence of that postulate. So Albert the Plagiarist became Divine Albert:
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN. "No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/courses/Summer12/PHY2054C/lect15-ch27__2.pdf
"He [Maxwell] also showed the speed of light is independent of the motion of both the source and the observer."
http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~gfl/lecture/OldNotes/GeneralRelativity2005/Lecture1.pdf
"As Maxwell's equations provide a single wave solution, with a velocity c, Einstein proposed the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light: The velocity of light in free space is the same for all inertial observers."
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."
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Does-mc2-Should-Care/dp/0306817586
Why Does E=mc2?: (And Why Should We Care?), Brian Cox, Jeff Forshaw, 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."
1% of Einsteinians all over the world teach the truth about Maxwell and the speed of light (according to Maxwell's theory, the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer):
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
JOHN NORTON: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."
http://culturesciencesphysique.ens-lyon.fr/XML/db/csphysique/metadata/LOM_CSP_relat.xml
Gabrielle Bonnet, École Normale Supérieure de Lyon: "Les équations de Maxwell font en particulier intervenir une constante, c, qui est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide. Par un changement de référentiel classique, si c est la vitesse de la lumière dans le vide dans un premier référentiel, et si on se place désormais dans un nouveau référentiel en translation par rapport au premier à la vitesse constante v, la lumière devrait désormais aller à la vitesse c-v si elle se déplace dans la direction et le sens de v, et à la vitesse c+v si elle se déplace dans le sens contraire."
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Maxwell's theory predicted that radio or light waves should travel at a certain fixed speed. But Newton's theory had got rid of the idea of absolute rest, so if light was supposed to travel at a fixed speed, one would have to say what that fixed speed was to be measured relative to. It was therefore suggested that there was a substance called the "ether" that was present everywhere, even in "empty" space. Light waves should travel through the ether as sound waves travel through air, and their speed should therefore be relative to the ether. Different observers, moving relative to the ether, would see light coming toward them at different speeds, but light's speed relative to the ether would remain fixed."
In fact, Einstein discovered his 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate by looking at the Lorentz transform (there was no other source). The constancy of the speed of light was a consequence of the Lorentz transform but Einstein changed the order - the constancy became an initial postulate and the Lorentz transform a consequence of that postulate. So Albert the Plagiarist became Divine Albert:
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
DIVINE EINSTEIN. "No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr! His fame went glo-bell, he won the Nobel - He should have been given four! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor with brains galore! No-one could outshine Professor Einstein! He gave us special relativity, That's always made him a hero to me! No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein, Professor in overdrive!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PkLLXhONvQ
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Everything is relative, even simultaneity, and soon Einstein's become a de facto physics deity. 'cos we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity. Yes we all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Aug 20, 2013, 8:35:38 AM8/20/13
to
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."
The problem is still unsolved:
http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."
That is, if the frequency measured by the stationary observer is f=c/L (L is the wavelength), the frequency measured by an observer moving towards the light source with speed v is:
f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L
where c'=c+v has a definite physical meaning: it is the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer. Clearly special relativity is violated. Einsteinians, if there are any left, couldn't care less of course.
Pentcho Valev
John Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then, the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair."
The problem is still unsolved:
http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf
Paul Fendley: "Now let's see what this does to the frequency of the light. We know that even without special relativity, observers moving at different velocities measure different frequencies. (This is the reason the pitch of an ambulance changes as it passes you it doesn't change if you're on the ambulance). This is called the Doppler shift, and for small relative velocity v it is easy to show that the frequency shifts from f to f(1+v/c) (it goes up heading toward you, down away from you). There are relativistic corrections, but these are negligible here."
That is, if the frequency measured by the stationary observer is f=c/L (L is the wavelength), the frequency measured by an observer moving towards the light source with speed v is:
f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L
where c'=c+v has a definite physical meaning: it is the speed of the light waves relative to the moving observer. Clearly special relativity is violated. Einsteinians, if there are any left, couldn't care less of course.
Pentcho Valev
Tom Roberts
Aug 20, 2013, 10:11:22 AM8/20/13
to
On 8/20/13 8/20/13 7:35 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm John
> Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which
> I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then,
> the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial
> frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of
> the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the
> ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true
> for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen
> that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or
> decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein
> states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to
> the point of despair."
Right. Then Stachel goes on to describe how Einstein solved the problem.
> http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-einstein-relativity.htm John
> Stachel: "But here he ran into the most blatant-seeming contradiction, which
> I mentioned earlier when first discussing the two principles. As noted then,
> the Maxwell-Lorentz equations imply that there exists (at least) one inertial
> frame in which the speed of light is a constant regardless of the motion of
> the light source. Einstein's version of the relativity principle (minus the
> ether) requires that, if this is true for one inertial frame, it must be true
> for all inertial frames. But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen
> that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or
> decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein
> states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to
> the point of despair."
Valev, however, is not interested in solutions, he is just interested in quotes
which he thinks support his own warped view of the world. Only fools like him
who cannot read would think that.
> The problem is still unsolved:
a century.
> http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf [...] There are relativistic corrections, but these are
> negligible here."
>
> That is, if the frequency measured by the stationary observer is f=c/L (L is
> the wavelength), the frequency measured by an observer moving towards the
> light source with speed v is:
> f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L
Not true. Valev didn't even read the text he quoted above: "THERE ARE
>
> That is, if the frequency measured by the stationary observer is f=c/L (L is
> the wavelength), the frequency measured by an observer moving towards the
> light source with speed v is:
> f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L
RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS" [emphasis mine] -- they are negligible for sound (the
subject of the quote), but not for light. Dr. Fendley is honest in mentioning
them; Valev is not honest at all.
> where c'=c+v has a definite physical meaning [...]
Only in Valev's fantasy world. In the world we inhabit, we OBSERVE that both
frequency and wavelength vary for an observer moving toward the source, such
that the (vacuum) speed of light remains c. Valev's fantasy, which is NOT
OBSERVED, has no physical meaning at all.
Note to readers: Pentcho Valev is among the most persistent
idiots around here. He has been repeating this nonsense for
many years, without any attempt to learn the subject he tries
to write about. I reply to him only occasionally, as a service
to readers who may not recognize his mistakes. He has proven
himself to be unable and unwilling to learn anything.
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
Aug 20, 2013, 11:52:40 AM8/20/13
to
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:11:22 PM UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 8/20/13 8/20/13 7:35 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf [...] There are relativistic corrections, but these are
> > negligible here."
> >
> > That is, if the frequency measured by the stationary observer is f=c/L (L is
> > the wavelength), the frequency measured by an observer moving towards the
> > light source with speed v is:
> > f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L
>
>
>
> Not true. Valev didn't even read the text he quoted above: "THERE ARE
> RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS" [emphasis mine] -- they are negligible for sound (the
> subject of the quote), but not for light. Dr. Fendley is honest in mentioning
> them; Valev is not honest at all.
Ah, Honest Roberts, you have become a zombie? I may have to start calling you "Clever Roberts". The relativistic corrections ARE NEGLIGIBLE FOR LIGHT, Honest (or Clever) Roberts, if v is small enough. That is, the formula given in textbooks where time dilation is accounted for is reduced to f'=f(1+v/c) when v is small enough. FOR LIGHT WAVES, Honest (or Clever) Roberts!
> On 8/20/13 8/20/13 7:35 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > http://rockpile.phys.virginia.edu/mod04/mod34.pdf [...] There are relativistic corrections, but these are
> > negligible here."
> >
> > That is, if the frequency measured by the stationary observer is f=c/L (L is
> > the wavelength), the frequency measured by an observer moving towards the
> > light source with speed v is:
> > f' = f(1+v/c) = (c+v)/L = c'/L
>
>
>
> Not true. Valev didn't even read the text he quoted above: "THERE ARE
> RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS" [emphasis mine] -- they are negligible for sound (the
> subject of the quote), but not for light. Dr. Fendley is honest in mentioning
> them; Valev is not honest at all.
Pentcho Valev
Tom Roberts
Aug 20, 2013, 4:29:46 PM8/20/13
to
distinguish between c and c+v, either.
Note, however, that ACTUAL OBSERVATIONS show your claim is wrong: there are
measurements that could distinguish c from c+v, and in the frame moving wrt the
source the (vacuum) speed of light IS OBSERVED TO BE c.
Why do you bother repeatedly posting nonsense?
Why do you not read the articles you reference?
Why do you repeatedly post claims shown to be wrong?
Why do you not bother to LEARN something about the subject you attempt to write
about?
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
Aug 20, 2013, 5:55:37 PM8/20/13
to
On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:29:46 PM UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
> But, Dishonest Valev, if those corrections are negligible, one cannot
> distinguish between c and c+v, either.
There is no connection whatsoever between the antecedent and the consequent, Clever Roberts. If you had written:
> But, Dishonest Valev, if those corrections are negligible, one cannot
> distinguish between c and c+v, either.
"If those corrections are negligible, crocodiles can fly"
the conditional would be equally valid.
What is going on, Clever Roberts? Temporary deterioration of mental functions?
Pentcho Valev
Tom Roberts
Aug 20, 2013, 11:10:27 PM8/20/13
to
On 8/20/13 8/20/13 4:55 PM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:29:46 PM UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> But, Dishonest Valev, if those corrections are negligible, one cannot
>> distinguish between c and c+v, either.
>
> There is no connection whatsoever between the antecedent and the consequent
That's simply not true. Here "negligible" means that the approximation involved
> On Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:29:46 PM UTC+2, Tom Roberts wrote:
>> But, Dishonest Valev, if those corrections are negligible, one cannot
>> distinguish between c and c+v, either.
>
> There is no connection whatsoever between the antecedent and the consequent
in ignoring them is more accurate than your measurement accuracy. That directly
implies that your measurement accuracy is not good enough to distinguish c from
c+v. BECAUSE IF YOU COULD DISTINGUISH THEM THEN THE RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS
WOULD NOT BE NEGLIGIBLE.
> If you had written:
> "If those corrections are negligible, crocodiles can fly"
> the conditional would be equally valid.
here -- YOU claim the antecedent is TRUE.
> What is going on, Clever Roberts? Temporary deterioration of mental functions?
Tom Roberts
0 new messages