NEWTON CHALLENGES EINSTEIN
Pentcho Valev
a tower of height h. Initially the centimeter marks pass an observer
at the top of the tower with frequency f, speed s and "wavelength" L
(1cm):
f = s/L
What are the frequency f', speed s' and "wavelength" L' as measured by
an observer on the ground? Newton gives a straightforward answer (it
is assumed that s'>>s'-s):
f' = f(1+gh/s^2) = (s+v)/L
s' = s(1+gh/s^2) = s+v
L' = L
where v=s'-s is the increase in speed.
Then the observer at the top of the tower emits light towards the
ground. Relative to this observer, the light has frequency f, speed c
and wavelength L:
f = c/L
What are the frequency f', speed c' and wavelength L' as measured by
an observer on the ground? Newton's emission theory of light gives a
straightforward answer again:
f' = f(1+gh/c^2) = (c+v)/L
c' = c(1+gh/c^2) = c+v
L' = L
where v=c'-c is the increase in speed.
The answer given by Einstein's relativity is by no means
straightforward:
f' = f(1+gh/c^2) = ...
c' = ... = ...
L' = ...
In 1911 Einstein explicitly recognized the equation c'=c(1+gh/c^2) but
simultaneously contested it by introducing gravitational time
dilation:
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Light_Propagation_in_a_Gravitational_Field.pdf
"In 1911 Einstein published the paper "On the Influence of Gravitation
on the Propagation of Light." (...) Light is blue-shifted (has a
higher frequency) as it approaches a massive body... (...) Similarly,
light red-shifts and goes to a lower frequency as it escapes a massive
body... (...) To counter the absurdity that more or less periods per
second can be received than were emitted, Einstein argues that this is
because the time is dilated near a massive body... (...) When the
velocity of light c is measured at S1 and S2 with identical clocks in
local time, the speed of light is always the same. When clocks
corrected for gravitational time dilation are used instead, (count in
common or absolute time) the light at S2 is travelling faster than the
light at S1. The speed of light c is no longer constant, but increases
with increasing phi. c=co(1+phi/c^2). where co is the speed of light
when phi=0."
In 1915 Einstein replaced c'=c(1+gh/c^2) with c'=c(1+2gh/c^2):
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula
can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed
of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to
be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915
and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory
of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a
particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be
represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed
of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray
through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so
we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non-
vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial
light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass,
and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in
which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a
formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the
Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical
gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if
we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild
coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911
equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the
potential term."
http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from:
http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/einstein-papers/1911_35_898-908.pdf
). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by
about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in
the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you
will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the
variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The
result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential
relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You
can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from
the full theory of general relativity in the weak field
approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page
93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation
shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."
Finally, Einsteinians replaced c'=c(1+2gh/c^2) with c'=c:
http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newton's theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"
http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_sp_gr.html
"Is light affected by gravity? If so, how can the speed of light be
constant? Wouldn't the light coming off of the Sun be slower than the
light we make here? If not, why doesn't light escape a black hole?
Yes, light is affected by gravity, but not in its speed. General
Relativity (our best guess as to how the Universe works) gives two
effects of gravity on light. It can bend light (which includes effects
such as gravitational lensing), and it can change the energy of light.
But it changes the energy by shifting the frequency of the light
(gravitational redshift) not by changing light speed. Gravity bends
light by warping space so that what the light beam sees as "straight"
is not straight to an outside observer. The speed of light is still
constant." Dr. Eric Christian
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
relativity."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
"Albert, the wave model presenting light as a continuous field works
fine in many cases but whenever you deal with the variation/constancy
of the speed of light you should apply the PARTICLE model!"
Einstein was tempted to act upon the advice all along but in the end
turned a deaf ear to it and sealed physics' fate:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Development_of_Our_Views_on_the_Composition_and_Essence_of_Radiation
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein, 1909
"A large body of facts shows undeniably that light has certain
fundamental properties that are better explained by Newton's emission
theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For this reason, I
believe that the next phase in the development of theoretical physics
will bring us a theory of light that can be considered a fusion of the
oscillation and emission theories. The purpose of the following
remarks is to justify this belief and to show that a profound change
in our views on the composition and essence of light is
imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up light no
longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather as
independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
physics:
http://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/pdf/files/975547d7-2d00-433a-b7e3-4a09145525ca.pdf
Albert Einstein 1954: "I consider it entirely possible that physics
cannot be based upon the field concept, that is on continuous
structures. Then nothing will remain of my whole castle in the air,
including the theory of gravitation, but also nothing of the rest of
contemporary physics."
Recently John Norton explained that Einstein's field theory had been
the antithesis of Newton's emission theory of light:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "Einstein could not see how to formulate a fully
relativistic electrodynamics merely using his new device of field
transformations. So he considered the possibility of modifying
Maxwell's electrodynamics in order to bring it into accord with an
emission theory of light, such as Newton had originally conceived.
There was some inevitability in these attempts, as long as he held to
classical (Galilean) kinematics. Imagine that some emitter sends out a
light beam at c. According to this kinematics, an observer who moves
past at v in the opposite direction, will see the emitter moving at v
and the light emitted at c+v. This last fact is the defining
characteristic of an emission theory of light: the velocity of the
emitter is added vectorially to the velocity of light emitted. (...)
If an emission theory can be formulated as a field theory, it would
seem to be unable to determine the future course of processes from
their state in the present. AS LONG AS EINSTEIN EXPECTED A VIABLE
THEORY LIGHT, ELECTRICITY AND MAGNETISM TO BE A FIELD THEORY, these
sorts of objections would render an EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT
INADMISSIBLE."
Any thoughts? No further thoughts in the era of Postscientism:
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as
though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It
includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive
logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are
inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of
thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction.
Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity."
Pentcho Valev
theory's prediction that the speed of light varies with the speed of
the light source and incompatible with the antithesis (Einstein's 1905
light postulate) unless miracles (length contraction, time dilation
etc.) are introduced:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00001743/02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion.doc
John Norton: "These efforts were long misled by an exaggeration of the
importance of one experiment, the Michelson-Morley experiment, even
though Einstein later had trouble recalling if he even knew of the
experiment prior to his 1905 paper. This one experiment, in isolation,
has little force. Its null result happened to be fully compatible with
Newton's own emission theory of light. Located in the context of late
19th century electrodynamics when ether-based, wave theories of light
predominated, however, it presented a serious problem that exercised
the greatest theoretician of the day."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
"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."
Yet doublethink allows Einsteinians to use the Michelson-Morley
experiment as a deadly weapon against Newton's emission theory of
light:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."
http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com/1984-17.html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."
Pentcho Valev wrote:
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
http://bartleby.net/173/7.html
Albert Einstein: "If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we
see from the above that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with
the velocity c relative to the embankment. Now let us suppose that our
railway carriage is again travelling along the railway lines with the
velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the ray of
light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the
velocity of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage.
It is obvious that we can here apply the consideration of the previous
section, since the ray of light plays the part of the man walking
along relatively to the carriage. The velocity W of the man relative
to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative
to the embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to
the carriage, and we have
w = c - v.
The velocity of propagation of a ray of light relative to the carriage
thus comes out smaller than c. But this result comes into conflict
with the principle of relativity set forth in Section V. For, like
every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission of
light in vacuo must, according to the principle of relativity, be the
same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are
the body of reference. But, from our above consideration, this would
appear to be impossible. If every ray of light is propagated relative
to the embankment with the velocity c, then for this reason it would
appear that another law of propagation of light must necessarily hold
with respect to the carriage - a result contradictory to the principle
of relativity."
This is the silliest argument in the history of science. Einstein's
logic:
PREMISE 1: "The speed of light is c=300000km/s" is a general law of
nature.
PREMISE 2 ("the principle of relativity set forth in Section V"): "If,
relative to K, K' is a uniformly moving co-ordinate system devoid of
rotation, then natural phenomena run their course with respect to K'
according to exactly the same general laws as with respect to K."
CONCLUSION: The speed of light relative to the carriage is c=300000km/
s. Newton's emission theory of light predicting that w=c-v is false.
Any time Einsteinians bump into this argument of Divine Albert so
fatal for Newton they fiercely sing "Divine Einstein" and "Yes we all
believe in relativity, relativity, relativity". In the end the ecstasy
gets uncontrollable and they go into convulsions:
http://www.haverford.edu/physics/songs/divine.htm
No-one's as dee-vine as Albert Einstein
Not Maxwell, Curie, or Bohr!
He explained the photo-electric effect,
And launched quantum physics with his intellect!
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 --
Egad, could that guy derive!
He gave us special relativity,
That's always made him a hero to me!
Brownian motion, my true devotion,
He mastered back in aught-five!
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, 8.033, relativity.
Einstein's postulates imply
That planes are shorter when they fly.
Their clocks are slowed by time dilation
And look warped from aberration.
We all believe in relativity, relativity, relativity.
Yes we all believe in relativity, 8.033, relativity.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Kevin
> A javelin graduated in centimeters is thrown downwards from the top of
> a tower of height h. Initially the centimeter marks pass an observer
> at the top of the tower with frequency f, speed s and "wavelength" L
> (1cm):
The only ambiguity between Einstein and Newton could potentially be on
momentum... Newton's momentum equation was corrected at a later date
but I don't know if it was done so for the right reasons.
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
NATURE: "Chin-wen Chou and his colleagues at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colorado, have now
demonstrated Einstein's theories on more mundane scales. In tests of
the special and general theories of relativity, the NIST researchers
show that time speeds up if you climb just one rung up a ladder, and
slows down if you travel at just 36 kilometres per hour. Their results
are reported in Science this week."
http://www.pourlascience.fr/ewb_pages/a/actualite-la-relativite-a-l-epreuve-du-decimetre-25863.php
POUR LA SCIENCE: "Dans l'expérience du second type, les physiciens du
NIST ont placé les horloges à des hauteurs différant de 33
centimètres. L'horloge située plus bas est soumise à un champ de
pesanteur légèrement plus intense, donc retarde par rapport à l'autre.
L'expérience du NIST donne ici des résultats compatibles avec la
relativité générale, mais ils sont moins probants étant donné la
petitesse de l'effet, à la limite de la résolution expérimentale. Plus
précisément, le décalage relatif en fréquence des deux horloges est
d'environ 4 x 10^(-17)."
Einsteinians have again confirmed Newton's emission theory of light
and inform the world that it is Divine Albert's Divine Theory that is
gloriously confirmed. The world couldn't care less of course.
Peter Webb
"Pentcho Valev" <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a2681e25-db2f-465e...@k9g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100923/full/news.2010.487.html
NATURE: "Chin-wen Chou and his colleagues at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colorado, have now
demonstrated Einstein's theories on more mundane scales. In tests of
the special and general theories of relativity, the NIST researchers
show that time speeds up if you climb just one rung up a ladder, and
slows down if you travel at just 36 kilometres per hour. Their results
are reported in Science this week."
That's interesting - thanks.