info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN EINSTEINIANA
22 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
May 1, 2012, 1:10:53 AM5/1/12
to
http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/fall2008/managed/physics11/documents/Lecture5-11.pdf
"Doppler Shift. As long as the velocity of the observer, v, is much smaller than the speed of light, c, (for the case of sound waves much smaller than the speed of sound) then the expression that we derived is a very good approximation. Taking into account v may be in the opposite direction: f'=f(1±v/c). At this point you might ask why the shift in direction from the discussion of the equivalence principle. Soon, as we shall see, we can put this together with the equivalence principle to derive the gravitational redshift of light! In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."
The author correctly describes the frequency shift but is silent about the speed of light shift. The following elaboration on the text shows how the speed of light (as measured by the observer/receiver) varies with the speed of the observer and with the gravitational potential, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light (clever Einsteinians know the elaboration is correct):
Doppler Shift. As long as the velocity of the observer, v, is much smaller than the speed of light, c, (for the case of sound waves much smaller than the speed of sound) then the expression that we derived is a very good approximation. Taking into account v may be in the opposite direction: f'=f(1±v/c) and c'=c(1±v/c). At this point you might ask why the shift in direction from the discussion of the equivalence principle. Soon, as we shall see, we can put this together with the equivalence principle to derive the gravitational redshift of light! In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same values of f and c that were emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency and speed of light are: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2) and c'=c(1-v/c)=c(1-gh/c^2).
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
"Doppler Shift. As long as the velocity of the observer, v, is much smaller than the speed of light, c, (for the case of sound waves much smaller than the speed of sound) then the expression that we derived is a very good approximation. Taking into account v may be in the opposite direction: f'=f(1±v/c). At this point you might ask why the shift in direction from the discussion of the equivalence principle. Soon, as we shall see, we can put this together with the equivalence principle to derive the gravitational redshift of light! In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same value of f that was emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."
The author correctly describes the frequency shift but is silent about the speed of light shift. The following elaboration on the text shows how the speed of light (as measured by the observer/receiver) varies with the speed of the observer and with the gravitational potential, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light (clever Einsteinians know the elaboration is correct):
Doppler Shift. As long as the velocity of the observer, v, is much smaller than the speed of light, c, (for the case of sound waves much smaller than the speed of sound) then the expression that we derived is a very good approximation. Taking into account v may be in the opposite direction: f'=f(1±v/c) and c'=c(1±v/c). At this point you might ask why the shift in direction from the discussion of the equivalence principle. Soon, as we shall see, we can put this together with the equivalence principle to derive the gravitational redshift of light! In 1960 Pound and Rebka and later, 1965, with an improved version Pound and Snider measured the gravitational redshift of light using the Harvard tower, h=22.6m. From the equivalence principle, at the instant the light is emitted from the transmitter, only a freely falling observer will measure the same values of f and c that were emitted by the transmitter. But the stationary receiver is not free falling. During the time it takes light to travel to the top of the tower, t=h/c, the receiver is traveling at a velocity, v=gt, away from a free falling receiver. Hence the measured frequency and speed of light are: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2) and c'=c(1-v/c)=c(1-gh/c^2).
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tom Roberts
May 1, 2012, 9:25:54 AM5/1/12
to
On 5/1/12 5/1/12 12:10 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/fall2008/managed/physics11/documents/Lecture5-11.pdf
> "Doppler Shift. [...] Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."
of the observer, v, is much smaller than the speed of light, c,", and is
NEGLECTING THE RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS. The frequency shift IS NOT CORRECT
WITHOUT THOSE CORRECTIONS, but is APPROXIMATELY correct as given, and the
approximation is sufficient to THE AUTHOR'S NEEDS, BUT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO
CORRECTLY COMPUTE THE SPEED OF LIGHT -- for that one must use the correct
relativistic formulas.
> The following elaboration on the text [...]
IS WRONG, because you did not include the relativistic corrections, either.
Until you learn how to read, you will just keep posting nonsense to the 'net.
Such a waste of time....
Tom Roberts
> http://physics.ucsd.edu/students/courses/fall2008/managed/physics11/documents/Lecture5-11.pdf
> "Doppler Shift. [...] Hence the measured frequency is: f'=f(1-v/c)=f(1-gh/c^2)."
>
> The author correctly describes the frequency shift but is silent about the
> speed of light shift.
He is silent about the speed of light, because he is considering "the velocity
> The author correctly describes the frequency shift but is silent about the
> speed of light shift.
of the observer, v, is much smaller than the speed of light, c,", and is
NEGLECTING THE RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS. The frequency shift IS NOT CORRECT
WITHOUT THOSE CORRECTIONS, but is APPROXIMATELY correct as given, and the
approximation is sufficient to THE AUTHOR'S NEEDS, BUT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO
CORRECTLY COMPUTE THE SPEED OF LIGHT -- for that one must use the correct
relativistic formulas.
> The following elaboration on the text [...]
IS WRONG, because you did not include the relativistic corrections, either.
Until you learn how to read, you will just keep posting nonsense to the 'net.
Such a waste of time....
Tom Roberts
Pentcho Valev
May 1, 2012, 11:51:08 AM5/1/12
to
A clever Einsteinian (much cleverer than you, Honest Roberts) derives the fundamental equation of Newton's emission theory of light, c'=c(1+gh/c^2), in the form dc/dh=g/c:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo
"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"
That is, in a gravitational field the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixhczNygcWo
"Relativity 3 - gravity and light"
That is, in a gravitational field the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Henry Wilson DSc.
May 1, 2012, 6:11:12 PM5/1/12
to
On Tue, 1 May 2012 08:51:08 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt
www.scisite.info/redshift.exe
wrote:
www.scisite.info/redshift.exe
Paul B. Andersen
May 2, 2012, 2:48:32 PM5/2/12
to
On 02.05.2012 00:11, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
> www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt
|<<
| A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while
| falling from 26560km to Earth.
|
| In fractional terms: 0.1595/2.997E8 = 5.32E-10
|
| ..Which is identical to 'gravitational component' of
| the GR 'correction factor'.
|
| It is equivalent to 45.2 us/day.
|>>
I think you better explain this, Ralph.
How can the increased speed of your falling
photon make the clock in the satellite
run fast by 45.2 us/day?
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
> www.scisite.info/fallinglight.txt
|<<
| A falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while
| falling from 26560km to Earth.
|
| In fractional terms: 0.1595/2.997E8 = 5.32E-10
|
| ..Which is identical to 'gravitational component' of
| the GR 'correction factor'.
|
| It is equivalent to 45.2 us/day.
|>>
I think you better explain this, Ralph.
How can the increased speed of your falling
photon make the clock in the satellite
run fast by 45.2 us/day?
--
Paul
http://www.gethome.no/paulba/
Pentcho Valev
May 3, 2012, 6:00:07 AM5/3/12
to
http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
So the Pound-Rebka experiment showed that, in a gravitational field, the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light. The Michelson-Morley experiment also confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Relativity and Its Roots, 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://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://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."
So the Pound-Rebka experiment showed that, in a gravitational field, the speed of photons varies exactly as the speed of cannonballs does, in accordance with Newton's emission theory of light. The Michelson-Morley experiment also confirmed the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:
http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Relativity and Its Roots, 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://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://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "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."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
May 4, 2012, 1:34:03 PM5/4/12
to
http://student.fizika.org/~jsisko/Knjige/Klasicna%20Mehanika/David%20Morin/CH13.PDF
David Morin (p. 3): "Consider an instantaneous inertial frame, S, of the rocket. In this frame, the rocket is momentarily at rest (at, say, t=0), and then it accelerates out of the frame with acceleration g. The following discussion will be made with respect to the frame S. (...) The receiver and this next pulse then travel toward each other at relative speed c+v (as measured by someone in S)."
So according to "someone in S" the frequency (relative to the receiver) is f'=f(1+v/c) and the speed of light (relative to the receiver) is c'=c+v. Note that c'/f'=c/f=L, where f and c are the initial frequency and speed of light (as measured by the light source) and L is the wavelength.
According to the receiver, the frequency is f'=f(1+v/c) and the speed of light (relative to the receiver) is c'=c+v again. The speed of light (as measured by the receiver) CANNOT be c'=c - if it were c'=c, then the receiver would find the formula c'/f'=c/f=L invalid which is absurd.
Clearly the speed of light (as measured by the observer/receiver) varies with both the speed of the observer and the gravitational potential as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.
David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
David Morin (p. 3): "Consider an instantaneous inertial frame, S, of the rocket. In this frame, the rocket is momentarily at rest (at, say, t=0), and then it accelerates out of the frame with acceleration g. The following discussion will be made with respect to the frame S. (...) The receiver and this next pulse then travel toward each other at relative speed c+v (as measured by someone in S)."
So according to "someone in S" the frequency (relative to the receiver) is f'=f(1+v/c) and the speed of light (relative to the receiver) is c'=c+v. Note that c'/f'=c/f=L, where f and c are the initial frequency and speed of light (as measured by the light source) and L is the wavelength.
According to the receiver, the frequency is f'=f(1+v/c) and the speed of light (relative to the receiver) is c'=c+v again. The speed of light (as measured by the receiver) CANNOT be c'=c - if it were c'=c, then the receiver would find the formula c'/f'=c/f=L invalid which is absurd.
Clearly the speed of light (as measured by the observer/receiver) varies with both the speed of the observer and the gravitational potential as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light.
David Morin's text referred to above reappears as Chapter 14 in:
http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/book.html
Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, David Morin, Cambridge University Press
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
May 5, 2012, 12:37:31 PM5/5/12
to
http://www.cmmp.ucl.ac.uk/~ahh/teaching/1B24n/lect19.pdf
Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound and light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. We can tackle this case directly in the same way as we treated the moving source. If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t..."
That is, the observer covers the distance (c-Vo)t in time t and therefore measures the speed of the light waves to be c-Vo. In other words, the Doppler effect (moving observer) shows that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's special relativity.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Tony Harker, University College London: "The Doppler Effect: Moving sources and receivers. The phenomena which occur when a source of sound is in motion are well known. The example which is usually cited is the change in pitch of the engine of a moving vehicle as it approaches. In our treatment we shall not specify the type of wave motion involved, and our results will be applicable to sound and light. (...) Now suppose that the observer is moving with a velocity Vo away from the source. We can tackle this case directly in the same way as we treated the moving source. If the observer moves with a speed Vo away from the source (...), then in a time t the number of waves which reach the observer are those in a distance (c-Vo)t..."
That is, the observer covers the distance (c-Vo)t in time t and therefore measures the speed of the light waves to be c-Vo. In other words, the Doppler effect (moving observer) shows that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's special relativity.
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
May 9, 2012, 1:25:20 PM5/9/12
to
http://www.usna.edu/Users/physics/mungan/Scholarship/DopplerEffect.pdf
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."
That is, if the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed V, the wavelength remains unchanged (L'=L), the frequency shifts from f to f'=f(1+V/c) and the speed of light as measured by the observer shifts from c to c'=c+V, in violation of Einstein's special relativity. Both the frequency and the speed of light shifts, as well as the invariability of the wavelength, are clearly seen in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Carl Mungan: "Consider the case where the observer moves toward the source. In this case, the observer is rushing head-long into the wavefronts, so that we expect v'>v. In fact, the wave speed is simply increased by the observer speed, as we can see by jumping into the observer's frame of reference. Thus, v'=v+v_o=v(1+v_o/v). Finally, the frequency must increase by exactly the same factor as the wave speed increased, in order to ensure that L'=L -> v'/f'=v/f. Putting everything together, we thus have: OBSERVER MOVING TOWARD SOURCE: L'=L; f'=f(1+v_o/v); v'=v+v_o."
That is, if the observer starts moving towards the light source with speed V, the wavelength remains unchanged (L'=L), the frequency shifts from f to f'=f(1+V/c) and the speed of light as measured by the observer shifts from c to c'=c+V, in violation of Einstein's special relativity. Both the frequency and the speed of light shifts, as well as the invariability of the wavelength, are clearly seen in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EVzUyE2oD1w
"Fermilab physicist, Dr. Ricardo Eusebi, discusses the Doppler effect..."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
Pentcho Valev
May 10, 2012, 1:30:59 PM5/10/12
to
Divine Albert trying to hide his false light postulate:
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/henryMinkowski.pdf
"There is no doubt that, historically, Albert Einstein, in 1905, did introduce two postulates (and also, that it is he who discovered special relativity). But the second of these postulates (the one concerning the constancy of c, just in case Reese has confused you!) did not survive the year. In September of 1905 Einstein published a development from relativity - the discovery of the implication that E=mc^2 , and in this new paper he mentions a single postulate only. But the paper contains a sweet footnote: "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations." How I love that "of course!" Einstein was human!"
That is, in September of 1905 Divine Albert already knew that his light postulate was false and resorted to camouflage. Maxwell's theory by no means supported special relativity as it had predicted that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory." MICHIO KAKU: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved." JOHN NORTON AGAIN: "This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That 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."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/henryMinkowski.pdf
"There is no doubt that, historically, Albert Einstein, in 1905, did introduce two postulates (and also, that it is he who discovered special relativity). But the second of these postulates (the one concerning the constancy of c, just in case Reese has confused you!) did not survive the year. In September of 1905 Einstein published a development from relativity - the discovery of the implication that E=mc^2 , and in this new paper he mentions a single postulate only. But the paper contains a sweet footnote: "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations." How I love that "of course!" Einstein was human!"
That is, in September of 1905 Divine Albert already knew that his light postulate was false and resorted to camouflage. Maxwell's theory by no means supported special relativity as it had predicted that the speed of light (relative to the observer) varies with the speed of the observer:
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
JOHN NORTON: "Finally, in an apparent eagerness to provide a seamless account, an author may end up misstating the physics. Kaku (2004, p. 45) relates how Einstein found that his aversion to frozen light was vindicated when he later learned Maxwell's theory." MICHIO KAKU: "When Einstein finally learned Maxwell's equations, he could answer the question that was continually on his mind. As he suspected, he found that there were no solutions of Maxwell's equations in which light was frozen in time. But then he discovered more. To his surprise, he found that in Maxwell's theory, light beams always traveled at the same velocity, no matter how fast you moved." JOHN NORTON AGAIN: "This is supposedly what Einstein learned as a student at the Zurich Polytechnic, where he completed his studies in 1900, well before the formulation of the special theory of relativity. Yet the results described are precisely what is not to be found in the ether based Maxwell theory Einstein would then have learned. That 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."
Pentcho Valev
pva...@yahoo.com
0 new messages