A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Ad Hoc Fudge Factors in Fundamental Physics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old March 19th 19, 07:44 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Ad Hoc Fudge Factors in Fundamental Physics

In 1887 the Michelson-Morley experiment unequivocally proved Newton's variable speed of light (c'=c+v) and disproved the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory.. However the introduction of ad hoc fudge factors (in the text below Banesh Hoffmann calls them "contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations") completely reversed the meaning of the experiment - it was thereafter confirming c'=c and disproving c'=c+v:

"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

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. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

The ad hoc fudge factors made the originally disproved constancy of the speed of light (c'=c) so indisputable that Einstein found it safe and profitable to introduce it as a second postulate in his 1905 theory:

Albert Einstein: "...it is impossible to base a theory of the transformation laws of space and time on the principle of relativity alone. As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz’s theory of the stationary luminiferous ether..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_ether_theory

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old March 19th 19, 01:16 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Ad Hoc Fudge Factors in Fundamental Physics

Kip Thorne (4:56): "If you move toward the source [of light], you see the wavelength shortened, but you don't see the speed changed." https://youtu.be/mvdlN4H4T54?t=296

"The wavelength shortened" is an absurd fudge factor that saves Einstein's relativity. Here the initially stationary receiver (observer) starts moving towards the light source with speed v:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

If you want the speed of the light pulses relative to the receiver to remain unchanged, you should idiotically postulate that the motion of the receiver shifts the distance between incoming pulses - from d to d'=dc/(c+v)! Equally idiotically, the motion of the receiver must change the wavelength of the incoming light - from λ to λ'=λc/(c+v)!

Needless to say, the motion of the receiver (observer) CANNOT change the wavelength of the incoming light. The fudge factor is too idiotic, even for the standards of Einstein's schizophrenic world, so Einsteinians don't discuss it explicitly. Here are exceptions (these Einsteinians are particularly deranged and teach that the motion of the observer changes the wavelength even in the case of sound waves):

http://bretagnemontagne.files.wordpr...2011/02/23.jpg

Professor Martin White, UC Berkeley: "...the sound waves have a fixed wavelength (distance between two crests or two troughs) only if you're not moving relative to the source of the sound. If you are moving away from the source (or equivalently it is receding from you) then each crest will take a little longer to reach you, and so you'll perceive a longer wavelength. Similarly if you're approaching the source, then you'll be meeting each crest a little earlier, and so you'll perceive a shorter wavelength. [...] The same principle applies for light as well as for sound. In detail the amount of shift depends a little differently on the speed, since we have to do the calculation in the context of special relativity. But in general it's just the same: if you're approaching a light source you see shorter wavelengths (a blue-shift), while if you're moving away you see longer wavelengths (a red-shift)." http://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/...plershift.html

John Norton: "Every sound or light wave has a particular frequency and wavelength. In sound, they determine the pitch; in light they determine the color. 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)." http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...ved/index.html

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DcMHjnHWkAEXB8f.jpg

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old March 19th 19, 09:19 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Ad Hoc Fudge Factors in Fundamental Physics

An idiotic fudge factor in Einstein's general relativity (Premise 1 in Valid Argument II):

Two valid (truthfulness of the premises guarantees truthfulness of the conclusion) arguments:

Valid Argument I:

Premise 1: In a gravitational field the speed of falling light INCREASES - photons fall with the same acceleration as ordinary falling bodies (g = 9..8 m/s^2 near Earth's surface), as predicted by Newton's theory.

Premise 2: The formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength) is correct.

Conclusion: Gravitational time dilation does not exist - Einstein's general relativity is nonsense.

Valid Argument II:

Premise 1: In a gravitational field the speed of falling light DECREASES - the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g near Earth's surface.

Premise 2: The formula (frequency)=(speed of light)/(wavelength) is correct.

Conclusion: Gravitational time dilation does exist.

Premise 1 in Valid Argument II is an idiotic fudge factor Einstein had to introduce in his general relativity, in order to reconcile the miraculous gravitational time dilation he had fabricated in 1911 and the gravitational redshift predicted by Newton's theory:

"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached. [...] If the photon, the 'particle' of light, is thought of as behaving like a massive object, it would indeed be accelerated to higher speeds as it falls toward a black hole. However, the photon has no mass and so behaves in a manner that is not intuitively obvious." http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm

"...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass).. [...] You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. [...] Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm

"Thus, as φ becomes increasingly negative (i.e., as the magnitude of the potential increases), the radial "speed of light" c_r defined in terms of the Schwarzschild parameters t and r is reduced to less than the nominal value of c." https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old March 19th 19, 09:37 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Ad Hoc Fudge Factors in Fundamental Physics

Insofar as the Mercury anomaly is concerned, the whole theory (Einstein's general relativity) can be regarded as an ad hoc fudge factor:

Post-truth science: "Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct." http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p1...ionMercury.htm

Sometimes the truth shows up even in Einstein's schizophrenic world: Countless ad hoc adjustments until "excellent agreement with observation" is reached:

Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field.. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation." http://zope.mpiwg-berlin.mpg.de/livi...files/EBms.pdf

Pentcho Valev
  #5  
Old March 20th 19, 01:30 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Ad Hoc Fudge Factors in Fundamental Physics

Richard Feynman: "So the way to state the rule is to say that the man who has felt the accelerations, who has seen things fall against the walls, and so on, is the one who would be the younger." http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_16.html

Feynman is discussing Einstein's 1918 fudge factor - one of the greatest idiocies in the history of science. In 1918 Einstein informed the gullible world that, as the traveling clock (twin) turns around and experiences acceleration, a HOMOGENEOUS gravitational field emerges which instantly reaches the distant stay-at-home clock (twin) and makes it run very fast (makes the stay-at-home twin age very fast) during the turning-around period:

Albert Einstein 1918: "A homogeneous gravitational field appears, that is directed towards the positive x-axis. Clock U1 is accelerated in the direction of the positive x-axis until it has reached the velocity v, then the gravitational field disappears again. An external force, acting upon U2 in the negative direction of the x-axis prevents U2 from being set in motion by the gravitational field. [...] According to the general theory of relativity, a clock will go faster the higher the gravitational potential of the location where it is located, and during partial process 3 U2 happens to be located at a higher gravitational potential than U1. The calculation shows that this speeding ahead constitutes exactly twice as much as the lagging behind during the partial processes 2 and 4." http://sciliterature.50webs.com/Dialog.htm

David Morin calls the idiocy "enough strangeness":

David Morin, Introduction to Classical Mechanics With Problems and Solutions, Chapter 11, p. 14: "Twin A stays on the earth, while twin B flies quickly to a distant star and back. [...] For the entire outward and return parts of the trip, B does observe A's clock running slow, but enough strangeness occurs during the turning-around period to make A end up older." http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~djmorin/chap11.pdf

In the quotation below Einstein's 1918 idiocy is clearly exposed, even though the emergence of the homogeneous gravitational field is not mentioned:

"When the twin in the spaceship turns around to make his journey home, the shift in his frame of reference causes his perception of his brother's age to change rapidly: he sees his brother getting suddenly older. This means that when the twins are finally reunited, the stay-at-home twin is the older of the two." http://topquark.hubpages.com/hub/Twin-Paradox

Einstein's 1918 idiocy was a crucial fudge factor that saved the absurd theory. Without recourse to "enough strangeness" (see David Morin's text above), either twin will find his brother younger when they reunite after the trip.

Pentcho Valev
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Adding Fudge Factors To Einstein's General Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 December 16th 17 03:55 PM
Fudge Factors in Einstein's Special Relativity Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 October 31st 17 09:24 AM
Einstein's General Relativity: Fudge Factors and Fudge Equations Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 March 10th 17 10:23 AM
Einstein's Fudge Factors Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 December 16th 16 10:14 PM
Physics is fundamental wrong Sarah Schwartz Astronomy Misc 134 June 27th 04 02:16 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.