Why the Speed of Light CANNOT Be Constant

1 view

pentch...@gmail.com

Aug 9, 2021, 5:44:36 PMAug 9
to
Albert Einstein Institute: "In the above paragraphs, we have only considered moving sources. In fact, a closer look at cases where it is the receiver that is in motion will show that this kind of motion leads to a very similar kind of Doppler effect. Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

By observing the two indicator lights, you can see for yourself that, once more, there is a blue-shift - the pulse frequency measured at the receiver is somewhat higher than the frequency with which the pulses are sent out. This time, THE DISTANCES BETWEEN SUBSEQUENT PULSES ARE NOT AFFECTED, BUT STILL THERE IS A FREQUENCY SHIFT: As the receiver moves towards each pulse, the time until pulse and receiver meet up is shortened. In this particular animation, which has the receiver moving towards the source at one third the speed of the pulses themselves, four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler.html

The text in CAPITALS proves variable speed of light (a speed-of-light shift), in accordance with the formula

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(distance between subsequent pulses)

Pentcho Valev

pentch...@gmail.com

Aug 10, 2021, 6:40:30 AMAug 10
to
Banesh Hoffmann, Einstein's collaborator, admits that, originally ("without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations"), the Michelson-Morley experiment directly proved Newton's variable speed of light and disproved the constant speed of light:

"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

Again:

"Without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations", the Michelson-Morley experiment proves Newton's variable speed of light and disproves the constant speed of light.

Fudge factors ("contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") reverse the situation: the Michelson-Morley experiment becomes compatible with the constant speed of light and incompatible with Newton's variable speed of light.