The Simplest Refutation of Einstein's Relativity

4 views
Skip to first unread message

pentch...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 20, 2021, 9:31:02 AM12/20/21
to
"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

That is, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with Newton's variable speed of light and, accordingly, incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light. But:

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

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

Pentcho Valev

pentch...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 20, 2021, 6:00:25 PM12/20/21
to
Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "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." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein' collaborator, clearly suggests that the Michelson-Morley experiment was incompatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), and only became compatible after fudge factors ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") were introduced ad hoc.

An alternative claim that saves Einstein's relativity but is too silly: The Michelson-Morley experiment was compatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the light source) speed of light both originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") and after fudge factors ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") were introduced ad hoc.

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

Pentcho Valev
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages