info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
GOODBYE EINSTEIN (VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT)
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Jul 5, 2015, 1:10:52 PM7/5/15
to
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary receiver)
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving receiver)
By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." [end of quotation]
That is, the speed of the pulses relative to the stationary receiver is c = 3d/t, but relative to the moving receiver is c' = 4d/t = (4/3)c, where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses".
Clearly the speed of light (relative to the receiver) varies with the speed of the receiver, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Let us formulate the problem in more precise terms. Consider a light source emitting a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d = 300000 km). The frequency of the pulses at a stationary receiver is f = c/d:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
The receiver starts moving with speed v towards the light source - the frequency shifts from f = c/d to f' = (c+v)/d:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif
Question: Why does the frequency shift from f = c/d to f' = (c+v)/d ?
Answer 1 (fatal for Einstein's relativity): Because the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver shifts from c to c' = c+v.
Answer 2 (saving Einstein's relativity): Because the motion of the receiver somehow changes the distance between the pulses - this distance should shift from d to d' = cd/(c+v) (otherwise goodbye Einstein!).
Answer 1 is reasonable (it is relevant for all types of wave), Answer 2 is obviously absurd. So the attempt to save Einstein's relativity amounts to reductio ad absurdum, which means that the underlying premise - Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate - is false.
Pentcho Valev
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif (stationary receiver)
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif (moving receiver)
By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, the distances between subsequent pulses are not affected, but still there is a frequency shift: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." [end of quotation]
That is, the speed of the pulses relative to the stationary receiver is c = 3d/t, but relative to the moving receiver is c' = 4d/t = (4/3)c, where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and t is "the time it takes the source to emit three pulses".
Clearly the speed of light (relative to the receiver) varies with the speed of the receiver, in violation of Einstein's relativity.
Let us formulate the problem in more precise terms. Consider a light source emitting a series of pulses the distance between which is d (e.g. d = 300000 km). The frequency of the pulses at a stationary receiver is f = c/d:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_static.gif
The receiver starts moving with speed v towards the light source - the frequency shifts from f = c/d to f' = (c+v)/d:
http://www.einstein-online.info/images/spotlights/doppler/doppler_detector_blue.gif
Question: Why does the frequency shift from f = c/d to f' = (c+v)/d ?
Answer 1 (fatal for Einstein's relativity): Because the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver shifts from c to c' = c+v.
Answer 2 (saving Einstein's relativity): Because the motion of the receiver somehow changes the distance between the pulses - this distance should shift from d to d' = cd/(c+v) (otherwise goodbye Einstein!).
Answer 1 is reasonable (it is relevant for all types of wave), Answer 2 is obviously absurd. So the attempt to save Einstein's relativity amounts to reductio ad absurdum, which means that the underlying premise - Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate - is false.
Pentcho Valev
Dan Christensen
Jul 6, 2015, 12:53:42 AM7/6/15
to
On Sunday, July 5, 2015 at 1:10:52 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://www.einstein-online...
Pentcho Valev FAQ
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm
John Baez, "The Crackpot Index"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
> http://www.einstein-online...
Pentcho Valev FAQ
http://bip.cnrs-mrs.fr/bip10/valevfaq.htm
John Baez, "The Crackpot Index"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
Pentcho Valev
Jul 6, 2015, 10:50:50 AM7/6/15
to
In 1887 (prior to FitzGerald and Lorentz advancing the ad hoc length contraction hypothesis), the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and refuted the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light predicted by the immobile ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion_final.pdf
"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://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
"In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
As John Norton suggests, today's Einsteinians ("later writers") are "almost universally" lying about the Michelson-Morley experiment - they teach that the experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light. How about Einstein? Was he honest, as Stachel and Norton believe?
Actually Einstein was the author of the hoax - the following text exposes him shamelessly teaching in 1921 that " Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K ":
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked."
Pentcho Valev
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/companion_final.pdf
"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://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
"In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that 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. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" by Banesh Hoffmann, p.92: "There are various remarks to be made about this second principle. For instance, if it is so obvious, how could it turn out to be part of a revolution - especially when the first principle is also a natural one? 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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous."
As John Norton suggests, today's Einsteinians ("later writers") are "almost universally" lying about the Michelson-Morley experiment - they teach that the experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light. How about Einstein? Was he honest, as Stachel and Norton believe?
Actually Einstein was the author of the hoax - the following text exposes him shamelessly teaching in 1921 that " Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K ":
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE
The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked."
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Jul 7, 2015, 4:35:01 PM7/7/15
to
Einsteinians like to make fun of the gullible world - they teach that Einstein's 1905 false constant-speed-of-light postulate was the result of "a cosmic conspiracy of the highest order":
http://astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro109/readings/speedlimit.htm
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything - you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft - shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is a cosmic conspiracy of the highest order."
https://plus.maths.org/content/einstein-relativity
David Tong: "Special relativity is where the famous equation E=mc^2 comes from. The central idea of the theory is that there is a speed limit in our Universe. The laws of physics conspire so that nothing can ever travel faster than the speed of light."
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1113378923/cosmic-yarns-science-fiction-and-the-cosmic-speed-limit-042715/
Robert Scherrer: "In fact, the laws for adding and subtracting speeds have to conspire to keep the speed of the light the same no matter how fast or in what direction an observer is moving. The only way to make this happen is for space and time to expand or contact as objects move."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc3-29dguFs
Brian Greene: "Einstein proposed a truly stunning idea - that space and time could work together, constantly adjusting by exactly the right amount so that no matter how fast you might be moving, when you measure the speed of light it always comes out to be 671000000 miles per hour."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/special-relativity-nutshell.html
Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall: "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..."
Pentcho Valev
http://astro.cornell.edu/academics/courses/astro109/readings/speedlimit.htm
Neil deGrasse Tyson: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything - you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft - shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is a cosmic conspiracy of the highest order."
https://plus.maths.org/content/einstein-relativity
David Tong: "Special relativity is where the famous equation E=mc^2 comes from. The central idea of the theory is that there is a speed limit in our Universe. The laws of physics conspire so that nothing can ever travel faster than the speed of light."
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1113378923/cosmic-yarns-science-fiction-and-the-cosmic-speed-limit-042715/
Robert Scherrer: "In fact, the laws for adding and subtracting speeds have to conspire to keep the speed of the light the same no matter how fast or in what direction an observer is moving. The only way to make this happen is for space and time to expand or contact as objects move."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc3-29dguFs
Brian Greene: "Einstein proposed a truly stunning idea - that space and time could work together, constantly adjusting by exactly the right amount so that no matter how fast you might be moving, when you measure the speed of light it always comes out to be 671000000 miles per hour."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/special-relativity-nutshell.html
Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI
Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall: "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..."
Pentcho Valev
0 new messages