19 views

Skip to first unread message

Oct 22, 2022, 5:01:15 AM10/22/22

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, as posited by Newton's theory and proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 (prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor):

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq

"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

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

The speed of light does depend on the speed of the source, as posited by Newton's theory and proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 (prior to the introduction of the length-contraction fudge factor):

https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-f10f1c25528a4e5edc9bae200640f31c-pjlq

"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

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Oct 22, 2022, 5:46:25 PM10/22/22

to

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is OBVIOUSLY false. Consider Doppler (moving observer):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency at the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency at the moving observer.

But if Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is obviously false, why do physicists believe it is true? Ignatius of Loyola explains:

"We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what we see as white is black, if the hierarchy of the Church defines it thus" https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c9/bb/5e/c9bb5eb049bc1d58834129afcea7d63b.jpg

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE

The speed of the light pulses relative to the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency at the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses relative to the moving observer is

c'= df' > c

where f' > f is the frequency at the moving observer.

But if Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate is obviously false, why do physicists believe it is true? Ignatius of Loyola explains:

"We should always be prepared so as never to err to believe that what we see as white is black, if the hierarchy of the Church defines it thus" https://i.pinimg.com/736x/c9/bb/5e/c9bb5eb049bc1d58834129afcea7d63b.jpg

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

Reply all

Reply to author

Forward

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu