11 views

Skip to first unread message

Jun 26, 2022, 5:15:38 PM6/26/22

to

Doppler effect (moving observer):

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

The speed of the light pulses as measured by the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency measured by the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses as measured by the moving observer is

c' = df' = c+v

where f' = (c+v)/d is the frequency measured by the moving observer.

Why do theoretical physicists ignore a fact that is so obvious? Because, judging from the texts below, telling the truth would be suicidal for them:

"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed... The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. [...] The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

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

Pentcho Valev

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

The speed of the light pulses as measured by the stationary observer is

c = df

where d is the distance between subsequent pulses and f is the frequency measured by the stationary observer. The speed of the pulses as measured by the moving observer is

c' = df' = c+v

where f' = (c+v)/d is the frequency measured by the moving observer.

Why do theoretical physicists ignore a fact that is so obvious? Because, judging from the texts below, telling the truth would be suicidal for them:

"He opened by explaining how Einstein's theory of relativity is the foundation of every other theory in modern physics and that the assumption that the speed of light is constant is the foundation of that theory. Thus a constant speed of light is embedded in all of modern physics and to propose a varying speed of light (VSL) is worse than swearing! It is like proposing a language without vowels." http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/VSLRevPrnt.html

"If there's one thing every schoolboy knows about Einstein and his theory of relativity, it is that the speed of light in vacuum is constant. No matter what the circumstances, light in vacuum travels at the same speed... The speed of light is the very keystone of physics, the seemingly sure foundation upon which every modern cosmological theory is built, the yardstick by which everything in the universe is measured. [...] The only aspect of the universe that didn't change was the speed of light. And ever since, the constancy of the speed of light has been woven into the very fabric of physics, into the way physics equations are written, even into the notation used. Nowadays, to "vary" the speed of light is not even a swear word: It is simply not present in the vocabulary of physics." https://www.amazon.com/Faster-Than-Speed-Light-Speculation/dp/0738205257

"The whole of physics is predicated on the constancy of the speed of light," Joao Magueijo, a cosmologist at Imperial College London and pioneer of the theory of variable light speed, told Motherboard. "So we had to find ways to change the speed of light without wrecking the whole thing too much." https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/8q87gk/light-speed-slowed

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

Pentcho Valev

Jun 26, 2022, 9:00:50 PM6/26/22

to

"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

So in 1887 Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c ± v, would have explained the Michelson-Morley experiment. In other words, if Michelson and Morley had used c'=c ± v in their calculations, they would have reached the conclusion that the two perpendicular rays should return simultaneously, and the experiment would have confirmed that conclusion.

Instead, Michelson and Morley used c'=c (constant speed of light) in their calculations, reached the conclusion that the two rays should return at different times, and the experiment refuted the conclusion. Then the introduction of idiotic fudge factors - "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" - marked the beginning of the end of theoretical physics:

"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

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

Pentcho Valev

So in 1887 Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c ± v, would have explained the Michelson-Morley experiment. In other words, if Michelson and Morley had used c'=c ± v in their calculations, they would have reached the conclusion that the two perpendicular rays should return simultaneously, and the experiment would have confirmed that conclusion.

Instead, Michelson and Morley used c'=c (constant speed of light) in their calculations, reached the conclusion that the two rays should return at different times, and the experiment refuted the conclusion. Then the introduction of idiotic fudge factors - "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" - marked the beginning of the end of theoretical physics:

"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

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