info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why does New Scientist lie about the speed of light?
60 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Sep 21, 2016, 2:26:54 PM9/21/16
to
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2106321-reality-guide-the-essential-laws-of-cosmology/
New Scientist: "Back in the 1860s, James Clerk Maxwell was melding electricity and magnetism into one unified theory of electromagnetism. But however he sliced the equations, they only made sense if light travelled through space at the same constant speed, regardless of the speed of its source. This is odd. If someone fires a bullet from a moving car, to a bystander the bullet travels at the sum of its speed and the car’s speed. Yet when 20 years later US physicists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley were looking for the luminiferous ether, a medium supposed to carry light, they reached the same conclusion: however you look at it, the speed of light is a constant."
Actually the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the speed of light is variable, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
"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)."
That is, 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 ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, 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."
Pentcho Valev
New Scientist: "Back in the 1860s, James Clerk Maxwell was melding electricity and magnetism into one unified theory of electromagnetism. But however he sliced the equations, they only made sense if light travelled through space at the same constant speed, regardless of the speed of its source. This is odd. If someone fires a bullet from a moving car, to a bystander the bullet travels at the sum of its speed and the car’s speed. Yet when 20 years later US physicists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley were looking for the luminiferous ether, a medium supposed to carry light, they reached the same conclusion: however you look at it, the speed of light is a constant."
Actually the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the speed of light is variable, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
"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)."
That is, 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 ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, 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."
Pentcho Valev
Pentcho Valev
Sep 22, 2016, 3:30:17 AM9/22/16
to
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22029410.900
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."
How did Einstein kill time, New Scientist? By introducing his false constant-speed-of-light postulate of course:
http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/
"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."
https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
Pentcho Valev
New Scientist: "Saving time: Physics killed it. Do we need it back? [...] Einstein landed the fatal blow at the turn of the 20th century."
How did Einstein kill time, New Scientist? By introducing his false constant-speed-of-light postulate of course:
http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/04/professor-baumgarte-describes-100-years-of-gravity/
"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same, independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence, space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered a new joint entity called "spacetime."
https://edge.org/response-detail/25477
What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime... [...] The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/10/time-reborn-farewell-reality-review
"And by making the clock's tick relative - what happens simultaneously for one observer might seem sequential to another - Einstein's theory of special relativity not only destroyed any notion of absolute time but made time equivalent to a dimension in space: the future is already out there waiting for us; we just can't see it until we get there. This view is a logical and metaphysical dead end, says Smolin."
https://www.edge.org/response-detail/26563
Nobel Laureate David Gross observed, "Everyone in string theory is convinced...that spacetime is doomed. But we don't know what it's replaced by."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U47kyV4TMnE
Nima Arkani-Hamed (06:09): "Almost all of us believe that space-time doesn't really exist, space-time is doomed and has to be replaced by some more primitive building blocks."
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721.200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-spacetime.html
"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time [...] The stumbling block lies with their conflicting views of space and time. As seen by quantum theory, space and time are a static backdrop against which particles move. In Einstein's theories, by contrast, not only are space and time inextricably linked, but the resulting space-time is moulded by the bodies within it. [...] Something has to give in this tussle between general relativity and quantum mechanics, and the smart money says that it's relativity that will be the loser."
https://www.perimeterinstitute.ca/research/conferences/convergence/roundtable-discussion-questions/what-are-lessons-quantum
Perimeter Institute: "Quantum mechanics has one thing, time, which is absolute. But general relativity tells us that space and time are both dynamical so there is a big contradiction there. So the question is, can quantum gravity be formulated in a context where quantum mechanics still has absolute time?"
Pentcho Valev
Gary Harnagel
Sep 22, 2016, 7:40:46 AM9/22/16
to
On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 12:26:54 PM UTC-6, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>
> Actually the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the speed of light is
> variable, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:
Abysmally-false assertion by an abysmally-stupid ignoramus. As explained
>
> Actually the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the speed of light is
> variable, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:
MANY, MANY times in this group, the MMX is consistent with ballistic theory,
relativity and entrained ether theory. Abysmally-stupid Pentcho refuses
to have a brain.
> That is, 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 ether theory and later adopted by
> Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
washed out with soap.
Gary
jaymo...@hotmail.com
Sep 22, 2016, 9:53:35 AM9/22/16
to
Gary Harnagle
MMX is not consistent with SR. SR dictates that light
cannot travel at c isotropically to a rotating source.
MMX rotates around the earths axis 1/ day. Yet
light travels at the same speed isotropically relative to its
rotating source. This is neither predicted by nor is
consistent with SR.
> Abysmally-false assertion by an abysmally-stupid ignoramus. As explained MANY, MANY times in this group, the MMX is consistent with ballistic theory, relativity and entrained ether theory. Abysmally-stupid Pentcho refuses to have a brain.
Come on Gary. Get your facts straight.
MMX is not consistent with SR. SR dictates that light
cannot travel at c isotropically to a rotating source.
MMX rotates around the earths axis 1/ day. Yet
light travels at the same speed isotropically relative to its
rotating source. This is neither predicted by nor is
consistent with SR.
Tom Roberts
Sep 22, 2016, 10:41:30 AM9/22/16
to
On 9/22/16 9/22/16 8:53 AM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Come on Gary. Get your facts straight. MMX is not consistent with SR.
Wrong. YOU got your "facts" wrong.
> SR
> dictates that light cannot travel at c isotropically to a rotating source.
Yes, but you must specify VERY CAREFULLY what you mean by "[relative] to a
rotating source". Here there be dragons, and it is quite clear you are unaware
of the difficulties.
> MMX rotates around the earths axis 1/ day. Yet light travels at the same
> speed isotropically relative to its rotating source. This is neither
> predicted by nor is consistent with SR.
Not true. Repeating:
You need to learn about QUANTITATIVE analysis of experiments, analysis of their
resolution, and analysis of their errors. Here you merely display your personal
ignorance of basic experimental physics.
For the MMX, the relevant time for establishing the fringe positions is the time
light takes to traverse the apparatus, about 35 nanoseconds -- that is, every 35
ns one can consider a new light ray emerging from the source and painting the
fringes on the observer's eyeball (which then reacts far more slowly). The point
is, the non-inertial motions you mention, as well as the effect of gravity, are
all completely unobservable, as they are thousands to millions of times smaller
than the resolution of the measurement.
To well within the experimental resolution, the MMX can be considered at rest in
an inertial frame, separately at each orientation.
Tom Roberts
> Gary Harnagle wrote:
>> the MMX is consistent with ballistic
>> theory, relativity and entrained ether theory.
Yes. Including repetitions with vastly better resolutions.
>> the MMX is consistent with ballistic
>> theory, relativity and entrained ether theory.
> Come on Gary. Get your facts straight. MMX is not consistent with SR.
> SR
> dictates that light cannot travel at c isotropically to a rotating source.
rotating source". Here there be dragons, and it is quite clear you are unaware
of the difficulties.
> MMX rotates around the earths axis 1/ day. Yet light travels at the same
> speed isotropically relative to its rotating source. This is neither
> predicted by nor is consistent with SR.
You need to learn about QUANTITATIVE analysis of experiments, analysis of their
resolution, and analysis of their errors. Here you merely display your personal
ignorance of basic experimental physics.
For the MMX, the relevant time for establishing the fringe positions is the time
light takes to traverse the apparatus, about 35 nanoseconds -- that is, every 35
ns one can consider a new light ray emerging from the source and painting the
fringes on the observer's eyeball (which then reacts far more slowly). The point
is, the non-inertial motions you mention, as well as the effect of gravity, are
all completely unobservable, as they are thousands to millions of times smaller
than the resolution of the measurement.
To well within the experimental resolution, the MMX can be considered at rest in
an inertial frame, separately at each orientation.
Tom Roberts
HGWilson, DSc.
Sep 22, 2016, 4:19:40 PM9/22/16
to
On 23/09/16 00:41, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/22/16 9/22/16 8:53 AM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Gary Harnagle wrote:
>>> the MMX is consistent with ballistic
>>> theory, relativity and entrained ether theory.
>
> Yes. Including repetitions with vastly better resolutions.
>
>
>> Come on Gary. Get your facts straight. MMX is not consistent with SR.
>
> Wrong. YOU got your "facts" wrong.
> On 9/22/16 9/22/16 8:53 AM, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Gary Harnagle wrote:
>>> the MMX is consistent with ballistic
>>> theory, relativity and entrained ether theory.
>
> Yes. Including repetitions with vastly better resolutions.
>
>
>> Come on Gary. Get your facts straight. MMX is not consistent with SR.
>
> Wrong. YOU got your "facts" wrong.
> To well within the experimental resolution, the MMX can be considered at
> rest in an inertial frame, separately at each orientation.
....And to explain the MMX, SR hypocritically calls on BaTh and simply
> rest in an inertial frame, separately at each orientation.
says both beams move at c relative to the source and everything at rest
in the source frame (all the mirrors) no matter how the apparatus is
oriented. So no fringe displacement is expected. The whole experiment
was doomed to be a waste of money from the start.
>
> Tom Roberts
Gary Harnagel
Sep 22, 2016, 5:55:17 PM9/22/16
to
On Thursday, September 22, 2016 at 7:53:35 AM UTC-6, jaymo...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> Gary Harnagel
fast that the beams can be considered as linear motions.
> MMX rotates around the earths axis 1/ day.
Which is even SLOWER than the table rotates.
> Yet light travels at the same speed isotropically relative to its
> rotating source.
The source is effectively nonrotating.
> This is neither predicted by nor is consistent with SR.
Baloney!
>
> Gary Harnagel
> >
> > Abysmally-false assertion by an abysmally-stupid ignoramus. As explained
> > MANY, MANY times in this group, the MMX is consistent with ballistic
> > theory, relativity and entrained ether theory. Abysmally-stupid Pentcho
> > refuses to have a brain.
>
> Come on Gary. Get your facts straight.
> MMX is not consistent with SR. SR dictates that light
> cannot travel at c isotropically to a rotating source.
Get YOUR facts straight. The MMX rotated so slowly and light travels so
> > Abysmally-false assertion by an abysmally-stupid ignoramus. As explained
> > MANY, MANY times in this group, the MMX is consistent with ballistic
> > theory, relativity and entrained ether theory. Abysmally-stupid Pentcho
> > refuses to have a brain.
>
> Come on Gary. Get your facts straight.
> MMX is not consistent with SR. SR dictates that light
> cannot travel at c isotropically to a rotating source.
fast that the beams can be considered as linear motions.
> MMX rotates around the earths axis 1/ day.
> Yet light travels at the same speed isotropically relative to its
> rotating source.
> This is neither predicted by nor is consistent with SR.
kenseto
Sep 26, 2016, 10:31:25 AM9/26/16
to
On Wednesday, September 21, 2016 at 2:26:54 PM UTC-4, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2106321-reality-guide-the-essential-laws-of-cosmology/
> New Scientist: "Back in the 1860s, James Clerk Maxwell was melding electricity and magnetism into one unified theory of electromagnetism. But however he sliced the equations, they only made sense if light travelled through space at the same constant speed, regardless of the speed of its source. This is odd. If someone fires a bullet from a moving car, to a bystander the bullet travels at the sum of its speed and the car’s speed. Yet when 20 years later US physicists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley were looking for the luminiferous ether, a medium supposed to carry light, they reached the same conclusion: however you look at it, the speed of light is a constant."
>
> Actually the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the speed of light is variable, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
> "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)."
>
> That is, 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 ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
The prediction constant light speed by the ether theory is correct for an observer who is at rest in the ether. But no observer in the universe is at rest in the ether.....that's where all the confusions arise. Sr and LET assumes the ether frame to derive its math and that's why SR and LET have the same math.
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/2106321-reality-guide-the-essential-laws-of-cosmology/
> New Scientist: "Back in the 1860s, James Clerk Maxwell was melding electricity and magnetism into one unified theory of electromagnetism. But however he sliced the equations, they only made sense if light travelled through space at the same constant speed, regardless of the speed of its source. This is odd. If someone fires a bullet from a moving car, to a bystander the bullet travels at the sum of its speed and the car’s speed. Yet when 20 years later US physicists Albert Michelson and Edward Morley were looking for the luminiferous ether, a medium supposed to carry light, they reached the same conclusion: however you look at it, the speed of light is a constant."
>
> Actually the Michelson-Morley experiment proved that the speed of light is variable, as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
> "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)."
>
> That is, 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 ether theory and later adopted by Einstein as his special relativity's second postulate:
0 new messages