info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Feynman Unwittingly Disproves Einstein's Relativity
14 views
Skip to first unread message
Pentcho Valev
Aug 9, 2023, 12:25:18 PM8/9/23
to
Richard Feynman: "First, let us calculate the time required for the light to go from B to E and back. Let us say that the time for light to go from plate B to mirror E is t_1, and the time for the return is t_2. Now, while the light is on its way from B to the mirror, the apparatus moves a distance ut_1, so the light must traverse a distance L + ut_1, at the speed c. We can also express this distance as ct_1, so we have
ct_1 = L+ut_1, or t_1 = L/(c−u).
(This result is also obvious from the point of view that the velocity of light relative to the apparatus is c−u, so the time is the length L divided by c−u.)" http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Feynman's words "at the speed c" express the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter (in this case the apparatus moving along the Earth's orbit). And, as Feynman explains, the assumption entails the absurdity that "the velocity of light relative to the apparatus is c−u". So the assumption is obviously false, isn't it? That is the reason why the final prediction based on this assumption is incompatible with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
If, instead of "at the speed c", we have a new assumption,
"at the speed c ± u",
as predicted by Newton's theory, the calculation (based on the new assumption) will give a new prediction,
t_1 + t_2 = 2t_3 = 2L/c,
which exactly matches the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
ct_1 = L+ut_1, or t_1 = L/(c−u).
(This result is also obvious from the point of view that the velocity of light relative to the apparatus is c−u, so the time is the length L divided by c−u.)" http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html
Feynman's words "at the speed c" express the assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter (in this case the apparatus moving along the Earth's orbit). And, as Feynman explains, the assumption entails the absurdity that "the velocity of light relative to the apparatus is c−u". So the assumption is obviously false, isn't it? That is the reason why the final prediction based on this assumption is incompatible with the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
If, instead of "at the speed c", we have a new assumption,
"at the speed c ± u",
as predicted by Newton's theory, the calculation (based on the new assumption) will give a new prediction,
t_1 + t_2 = 2t_3 = 2L/c,
which exactly matches the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment.
Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
Pentcho Valev
Aug 9, 2023, 1:39:01 PM8/9/23
to
Einstein: "If the speed of light depends even in the least on the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity, including the theory of gravitation, is wrong." https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol5-trans/376
The speed of light does depend on the speed of the source
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq
as originally, prior to the preposterous fudge-factoring performed by FitzGerald and Lorentz, proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:
"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)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:
"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
The speed of light does depend on the speed of the source
https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq
as originally, prior to the preposterous fudge-factoring performed by FitzGerald and Lorentz, proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment:
"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)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory
Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's co-author, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v, and incompatible with the constant speed of light, c'=c:
"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." Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92 https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768
Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev
0 new messages