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

Why Einstein's Idiocies Met No Opposition



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 29th 19, 09:19 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Why Einstein's Idiocies Met No Opposition

John Stachel: "But this seems to be nonsense. How can it happen that the speed of light relative to an observer cannot be increased or decreased if that observer moves towards or away from a light beam? Einstein states that he wrestled with this problem over a lengthy period of time, to the point of despair." http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm

It is not wrong to identify this (nonsensical) independence from the speed of the observer with Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate, but strictly speaking it was a deduction from this postulate:

Premise 1. The principle of relativity is correct (Einstein's 1905 first postulate).

Premise 2: The speed of light, as measured by the observer, is independent of the speed of the emitter (original version of Einstein's 1905 second postulate).

Conclusion: The speed of light, as measured by the observer, is independent of the speed of the observer.

The two premises sounded perfectly reasonable in 1905. The principle of relativity was fashionable (at least Poincaré firmly believed in it) while Premise 2 was a fundamental tenet of the dominant ether theory. So scientists like Poincaré had to accept Einstein's 1905 postulates.

But then, if you accept the premises and obey logic, you cannot oppose validly deduced conclusions, even if they sound idiotic. The only option for you is doublethink - a state of mind defined by Orwell in his "1984". That was Poincaré's tragedy:

Olivier Darrigol, The Mystery of the Einstein-Poincaré Connection: "It is clear from the context that Poincaré meant here to apply the postulate [of constancy of the speed of light] only in an ether-bound frame, in which case he could indeed state that it had been "accepted by everybody." In 1900 and in later writings he defined the apparent time of a moving observer in such a way that the velocity of light measured by this observer would be the same as if he were at rest (with respect to the ether). This does not mean, however, that he meant the postulate to apply in any inertial frame. From his point of view, the true velocity of light in a moving frame was not a constant but was given by the Galilean law of addition of velocities." http://www.jstor.org/stable/3653092

Vincent Borella, Les écrits épistémologiques de Poincaré, obstacles Ã* la diffusion de la relativité?, p. 74: "Pour Einstein le postulat de la constance de la vitesse de la lumière par rapport Ã* n'importe quel référentiel dans lequel elle est mesurée (ce qui est une expression du principe de relativité) est suffisant, alors qu'en fait, pour Poincaré, la vitesse de la lumière ne peut être constante que relativement au milieu dans lequel elle se propage, Ã* savoir l'éther supposé immobile." http://www.persee.fr/doc/rhs_0151-41..._num_55_1_2143

http://thenewsdoctors.com/wp-content...oublethink.jpg

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old April 29th 19, 12:51 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Why Einstein's Idiocies Met No Opposition

The conclusion that the speed of light, as measured by the observer, is independent of the speed of the observer, is idiotic. The speed of light obviously VARIES with the speed of the observer:

Stationary light source, moving observer (receiver): http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif

The speed of the light pulses as measured by the source is

c = df

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

c'= df' c

where f' f is the frequency measured by the observer.

In this scenario the speed of light VARIES with the speed of the observer, the frequency measured by him VARIES accordingly, but the distance between the light pulses, which is equivalent to wavelength, remains INVARIABLE.

The last observation, generalized over all possible scenarios, will become the fundamental axiom of future physics (Einstein's false constant-speed-of-light axiom will be abandoned):

"The wavelength of light is invariable"

I have tried to explain the reason behind this new axiomatization in a series of tweets he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old April 29th 19, 05:26 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Why Einstein's Idiocies Met No Opposition

Poincaré was very close to the truth - he knew that Lorentz had replaced the natural explainer of the Michelson-Morley experiment, Newton's variable speed of light, with idiotic contracting lengths:

Henri Poincaré: "Lorentz could have accounted for the facts by supposing that the velocity of light is greater in the direction of the earth's motion than in the perpendicular direction. He preferred to admit that the velocity is the same in the two directions, but that bodies are smaller in the former than in the latter." http://www.marxists.org/reference/su...r/poincare.htm

In the quotation below Banesh Hoffmann clearly explains that, "without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations" (as was the case in 1887), the Michelson-Morley experiment proves Newton's variable speed of light (c'=c±v) and disproves the constant (independent of the speed of the emitter) speed of light (c'=c) posited by the ether theory and adopted by Einstein:

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

Wikipedia: Newton's variable speed of light, c'=c ± v, explains the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment:

"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

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old April 30th 19, 05:26 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Why Einstein's Idiocies Met No Opposition

Neil deGrasse Tyson's "cosmic conspiracy of the highest order" - the triumph of post-truth (post-sanity) science:

Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, pp. 123-124: "If everyone, everywhere and at all times, is to measure the same speed for the beam from your imaginary spacecraft, a number of things have to happen. First of all, as the speed of your spacecraft increases, the length of everything - you, your measuring devices, your spacecraft - shortens in the direction of motion, as seen by everyone else. Furthermore, your own time slows down exactly enough so that when you haul out your newly shortened yardstick, you are guaranteed to be duped into measuring the same old constant value for the speed of light. What we have here is a COSMIC CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER." https://www.amazon.com/Death-Black-H.../dp/039335038X

Brian Greene: "Einstein proposed a truly stunning idea - that space and time could work together, constantly adjusting by exactly the right amount so that no matter how fast you might be moving, when you measure the speed of light it always comes out to be 671000000 miles per hour." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc3-29dguFs

Michelle Thaller (52:06): "The speed of light is so constant that the universe actually changes everything so that you never see it going any other speed" https://youtu.be/IuKtXTOlADU?t=3487

Robert Scherrer: "In fact, the laws for adding and subtracting speeds have to conspire to keep the speed of the light the same no matter how fast or in what direction an observer is moving. The only way to make this happen is for space and time to expand or contact as objects move." http://www.cosmicyarns.com/2015/04/s...eed-limit.html

Brian Greene: "If space and time did not behave this way, the speed of light would not be constant and would depend on the observer's state of motion. But it is constant; space and time do behave this way. Space and time adjust themselves in an exactly compensating manner so that observations of light's speed yield the same result, regardless of the observer's velocity." http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics...-nutshell.html

Constancy of the speed of light - the nonsense on which the whole fundamental physics is based - is imposed on physics students in the same way as the name Bingo is imposed on the dude in this video:

Bingo the Clowno https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kACHU5eSwQ&t=78s

In the end each student gets the name Bingo the Einsteiniano.

Bingo Quintet:

Michio Kaku, Brian Cox, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Lisa Randall, Brian Greene: "Light travels at the same speed no matter how you look at it. No matter how I move relative to you light travels at the same speed. No matter who is doing the measurement and no matter what direction you are moving the speed of light is the same. The speed of light is the same no matter what direction or how fast... As you travel faster time slows down. Everything slows down. Everything slows down. Time slows down when you move. Time passes at a different rate. Clocks run slow. It's a monumental shift in how we see the world. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautifully elegant theory. It's a beautiful piece of science. It's a beautiful piece..." https://www..youtube.com/watch?v=BuxFXHircaI

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
When Will Einstein's Idiocies End? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 October 28th 17 05:12 PM
Einstein's Idiocies in Songs Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 3 May 9th 17 07:42 PM
EINSTEIN IDIOCIES: THE ROTATING DISK Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 12 July 14th 08 01:51 AM
WHO DEFENDS EINSTEIN IDIOCIES? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 35 October 5th 07 12:00 PM
EINSTEIN IDIOCIES FOREVER? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 15 July 5th 07 09:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:01 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.