Newton's Variable Speed of Light: Proved in 1887

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Dec 30, 2021, 9:23:53 PM12/30/21
"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

So, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the Michelson-Morley experiment is compatible with Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c±v. In other words, if in 1887 Michelson and Morley had placed c'=c±v in their calculations, they would have predicted a null result and the experiment would have confirmed the prediction.

Is the Michelson-Morley experiment, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", compatible with the constant (independent of the speed of the source) speed of light, c'=c, posited by the ether theory and later "borrowed" by Einstein? Any sane scientist knows that this is impossible. Michelson and Morley did place c'=c in their calculations and predicted a non-null result refuted by the experiment. Only after Lorentz & Co introduced, ad hoc, "contracting lengths" did the null result become compatible with c'=c.

See more here:

Pentcho Valev

Dec 31, 2021, 5:42:14 AM12/31/21
Wikipedia tells the truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment here (elsewhere it says the opposite):

"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)."

John Norton, high priest in the Einstein cult, also tells the truth about the Michelson-Morley experiment:

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE."

Now let us consider this:

Richard Feynman: "I want to emphasize that light comes in this form - particles. It is very important to know that light behaves like particles, especially for those of you who have gone to school, where you probably learned something about light behaving like waves. I'm telling you the way it does behave - like particles. You might say that it's just the photomultiplier that detects light as particles, but no, every instrument that has been designed to be sensitive enough to detect weak light has always ended up discovering the same thing: light is made of particles."

In this text Feynman unwittingly suggests:

1. The speed of light varies as per Newton.

2. Variable wavelength of light ( is an unrealistic wave-based concept.

"The wavelength of light is constant" will become the fundamental axiom in future, Einstein-free physics (if it's not too late to resurrect physics).

More here:

Pentcho Valev
Reply all
Reply to author
0 new messages