RICHARD FEYNMAN ABOUT THE SPEED OF LIGHT

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 1, Chapter 15-1:
"Suppose we are riding in a car that is going at a speed u, and light
from the rear is going past the car with speed c. Differentiating the
first equation in (15.2) gives dx'/dt=dx/dt-u, which means that
according to the Galilean transformation the apparent speed of the
passing light, as we measure it in the car, should not be c but should
be c-u."

Needless to say, Feynman rejects the equation c'=c-u (it is
incompatible with Einstein's special relativity) but:

1. According to Maxwell's theory, the equation c'=c-u is correct (u is
the speed of the car relative to the ether).

2. According to Newton's emission theory of light, the equation c'=c-u
is correct (u is the speed of the car relative to the emitter).

3. In the absence of ad hoc auxiliary hypotheses (Lorentz-FitzGerald's
length contraction), the Michelson-Morley experiment confirms the
equation c'=c-u and refutes the alternative equation c'=c compatible
with Einstein's special relativity:

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/arch.../02/Norton.pdf
John Norton: "Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as
evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost
universally use it as support for the light postulate of special
relativity......THE MICHELSON-MORLEY EXPERIMENT IS FULLY COMPATIBLE
WITH AN EMISSION THEORY OF LIGHT THAT CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT
POSTULATE."

http://books.google.com/books?id=JokgnS1JtmMC
"Relativity and Its Roots" By Banesh Hoffmann
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."

Pentcho Valev

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 2, Chapter 42-6:
"Suppose we put a clock at the "head" of the rocket ship - that is, at
the front end - and we put another identical clock at the "tail," as
in fig. 42-16. Let's call the two clocks A and B. If we compare these
two clocks when the ship is accelerating, the clock at the head seems
to run fast relative to the one at the tail. To see that, imagine that
the front clock emits a flash of light each second, and that you are
sitting at the tail comparing the arival of the light flashes with the
ticks of clock B. (...) The first flash travels the distance L1 and
the second flash travels the shorter distance L2. It is a shorter
distance because the ship is acelerating and has a higher speed at the
time of the second flash. You can see, then, that if the two flashes
were emitted from clock A one second apart, they would arrive at clock
B with a separation somewhat less than one second, since the second
flash doesn't spend as much time on the way."

Einsteiniana's idiocies can destroy any rationality, even Richard
Feynman's one! If the acceleration is uniform, it is obvious that
L1=L2.

The problem has an easy solution. The observer (sitting at the tail)
measures the frequency of light to have increased. Then, by taking
into account the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

he concludes that either the speed of light (relative to the observer)
has increased (then Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false) or the
wavelength has decreased. Einsteinians believe that the wavelength
somehow varies with the speed of the observer:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 2, Chapter 42-6:
"Suppose we put a clock at the "head" of the rocket ship - that is, at
the front end - and we put another identical clock at the "tail," as
in fig. 42-16. Let's call the two clocks A and B. If we compare these
two clocks when the ship is accelerating, the clock at the head seems
to run fast relative to the one at the tail. To see that, imagine that
the front clock emits a flash of light each second, and that you are
sitting at the tail comparing the arival of the light flashes with the
ticks of clock B. (...) The first flash travels the distance L1 and
the second flash travels the shorter distance L2. It is a shorter
distance because the ship is acelerating and has a higher speed at the
time of the second flash. You can see, then, that if the two flashes
were emitted from clock A one second apart, they would arrive at clock
B with a separation somewhat less than one second, since the second
flash doesn't spend as much time on the way."

Einsteiniana's idiocies can destroy any rationality, even Richard
Feynman's one! If the acceleration is uniform, it is obvious that
L1=L2

Ah-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

a-heh-heh-heh.

yeh, if the acceleration is uniformly zero.

Thanks for the laff, Pantcho.

--
hz

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers...UP_TimesNR.pdf
John Norton: "Already in 1907, a mere two years after the completion
of the special theory, he [Einstein] had concluded that the speed of
light is variable in the presence of a gravitational field."

So in 1907 Einstein's nightmare began - it is easy to show, and
Einstein must have realized very quickly, that if the speed of light
varies with the gravitational potential, it varies with the speed of
the observer as well (in the absence of a gravitational field):

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.3/smolin.htm
Lee Smolin: "Special relativity was the result of 10 years of
intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong
within two years of publishing it."

Since the variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field
is a fundamental tenet of Einstein's general relativity, it is
extremely difficult to camouflage it. In 1911 Einstein devised some
camouflage (gravitational time dilation) but it is so absurd that even
Richard Feynman gets confused when trying to explain it (see below).
Einsteinians much sillier than Feynman usually solve all the problems
by simply declaring that the speed of light is constant in a
gravitational field:

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking, "A Brief History of Time", Chapter 6:
"Under the theory that light is made up of waves, it was not clear how
it would respond to gravity. But if light is composed of particles,
one might expect them to be affected by gravity in the same way that
cannonballs, rockets, and planets are.....In fact, it is not really
consistent to treat light like cannonballs in Newtons theory of
gravity because the speed of light is fixed. (A cannonball fired
upward from the earth will be slowed down by gravity and will
eventually stop and fall back; a photon, however, must continue upward
at a constant speed...)"

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?...64&It emid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
Steve Carlip: "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of
relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and
he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the
1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote:
". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so. THIS INTERPRETATION
IS PERFECTLY VALID AND MAKES GOOD PHYSICAL SENSE, BUT A MORE MODERN
INTERPRETATION IS THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS CONSTANT in general
relativity."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 2, Chapter 42-6:
"Suppose we put a clock at the "head" of the rocket ship - that is, at
the front end - and we put another identical clock at the "tail," as
in fig. 42-16. Let's call the two clocks A and B. If we compare these
two clocks when the ship is accelerating, the clock at the head seems
to run fast relative to the one at the tail. To see that, imagine that
the front clock emits a flash of light each second, and that you are
sitting at the tail comparing the arival of the light flashes with the
ticks of clock B. (...) The first flash travels the distance L1 and
the second flash travels the shorter distance L2. It is a shorter
distance because the ship is acelerating and has a higher speed at the
time of the second flash. You can see, then, that if the two flashes
were emitted from clock A one second apart, they would arrive at clock
B with a separation somewhat less than one second, since the second
flash doesn't spend as much time on the way."

Einsteiniana's idiocies can destroy any rationality, even Richard
Feynman's one! If the acceleration is uniform, it is obvious that
L1=L2.

The problem has an easy solution. The observer (sitting at the tail)
measures the frequency of light to have increased. Then, by taking
into account the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

he concludes that either the speed of light (relative to the observer)
has increased (then Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false) or the
wavelength has decreased. Einsteinians believe that the wavelength
somehow varies with the speed of the observer:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev

Richard Feynman is not the author of the idiocy L1L2L3...(see
below). Banesh Hoffmann shares this view, but it should be noted that
L1L2L3... is the only conclusion a clever Einsteinian can draw if
he firmly believes that the speed of light is constant. Yet, by
exercising himself in doublethink, Banesh Hoffmann does give the truth
in the end:

THE TRUTH: There is NO GRAVITATIONAL TIME DILATION - rather, THE SPEED
OF LIGHT VARIES and this is the cause of the observed frequency shift:

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also
in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of
light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks EVEN
THOUGH ALL THE CLOCKS GO AT THE SAME RATE. (...) As a result the
experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his
own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the
ceiling clock - EVEN THOUGH, AS I HAVE STRESSED, BOTH ARE GOING AT THE
SAME RATE. (...) THE GRAVITATIONAL RED SHIFT DOES NOT ARISE FROM
CHANGES IN THE INTRINSIC RATES OF CLOCKS. It arises from what befalls
light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of
gravitation."

http://www.liferesearchuniversal.com...html#seventeen
George Orwell: "Doublethink means the power of holding two
contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both
of them. The Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories
must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with
reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself
that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it
would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to
be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and
hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since
the essential act of the Party is to use conscious deception while
retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To
tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any
fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary
again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed,
to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take
account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably
necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to
exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is
tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this
knowledge ; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead
of the truth. (...) It need hardly be said that the subtlest
practitioners of doublethink are those who invented doublethink and
know that it is a vast system of mental cheating. In our society,
those who have the best knowledge of what is happening are also those
who are furthest from seeing the world as it is. In general, the
greater the understanding, the greater the delusion ; the more
intelligent, the less sane."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

The Feynman Lectures on Physics, Volume 2, Chapter 42-6:
"Suppose we put a clock at the "head" of the rocket ship - that is, at
the front end - and we put another identical clock at the "tail," as
in fig. 42-16. Let's call the two clocks A and B. If we compare these
two clocks when the ship is accelerating, the clock at the head seems
to run fast relative to the one at the tail. To see that, imagine that
the front clock emits a flash of light each second, and that you are
sitting at the tail comparing the arival of the light flashes with the
ticks of clock B. (...) The first flash travels the distance L1 and
the second flash travels the shorter distance L2. It is a shorter
distance because the ship is acelerating and has a higher speed at the
time of the second flash. You can see, then, that if the two flashes
were emitted from clock A one second apart, they would arrive at clock
B with a separation somewhat less than one second, since the second
flash doesn't spend as much time on the way."

Einsteiniana's idiocies can destroy any rationality, even Richard
Feynman's one! If the acceleration is uniform, it is obvious that
L1=L2.

The problem has an easy solution. The observer (sitting at the tail)
measures the frequency of light to have increased. Then, by taking
into account the formula:

(frequency) = (speed of light)/(wavelength)

he concludes that either the speed of light (relative to the observer)
has increased (then Einstein's 1905 light postulate is false) or the
wavelength has decreased. Einsteinians believe that the wavelength
somehow varies with the speed of the observer:

http://sampit.geol.sc.edu/Doppler.html
"Moving observer: A man is standing on the beach, watching the tide.
The waves are washing into the shore and over his feet with a constant
frequency and wavelength. However, if he begins walking out into the
ocean, the waves will begin hitting him more frequently, leading him
to perceive that the wavelength of the waves has decreased."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ang/index.html
John Norton: "Here's a light wave and an observer. If the observer
were to hurry towards the source of the light, the observer would now
pass wavecrests more frequently than the resting observer. That would
mean that moving observer would find the frequency of the light to
have increased (AND CORRESPONDINGLY FOR THE WAVELENGTH - THE DISTANCE
BETWEEN CRESTS - TO HAVE DECREASED)."

Pentcho Valev