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

Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 29th 16, 12:05 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has two aspects:

1. Any light moving in a vacuum has the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second, as measured by any observer.

2. If the observer were to hurry towards the light source (his speed changes), he would again measure the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second.

The first aspect has been disproved - the speed of light travelling in a vacuum is not a constant:

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-optical-slower.html
"Researchers at the University of Ottawa observed that twisted light in a vacuum travels slower than the universal physical constant established as the speed of light by Einstein's theory of relativity. (...) In The Optical Society's journal for high impact research, Optica, the researchers report that twisted light pulses in a vacuum travel up to 0.1 percent slower than the speed of light, which is 299,792,458 meters per second. (...) If it's possible to slow the speed of light by altering its structure, it may also be possible to speed up light. The researchers are now planning to use FROG to measure other types of structured light that their calculations have predicted may travel around 1 femtosecond faster than the speed of light in a vacuum."

http://rt.com/news/225879-light-speed-slow-photons/
"Physicists manage to slow down light inside vacuum (...) ...even now the light is no longer in the mask, it's just the propagating in free space - the speed is still slow. (...) "This finding shows unambiguously that the propagation of light can be slowed below the commonly accepted figure of 299,792,458 metres per second, even when travelling in air or vacuum," co-author Romero explains in the University of Glasgow press release."

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015.../1191422035480
"The speed of light is a limit, not a constant - that's what researchers in Glasgow, Scotland, say. A group of them just proved that light can be slowed down, permanently."

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story...ut-touching-it
"Although the maximum speed of light is a cosmological constant - made famous by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity and E=mc^2 - it can, in fact, be slowed down: that's what optics do."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxJ7_tbbIsg
"Glasgow researchers slow the speed of light"

The second aspect is even easier to disprove - I will do this in my next posting.

Pentcho Valev
  #2  
Old May 30th 16, 01:56 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics

Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate has two closely related aspects:

1. Any light travelling in a vacuum has the same constant speed, c = 299,792 kilometers per second, as measured by any observer.

2. If the observer were to hurry towards the light source (his speed changes), he would again measure the same speed of the incoming light, c = 299,792 kilometers per second.

As I have already shown in my previous posting, the first aspect has been disproved by experiments. Below the Albert Einstein Institute inadvertently refutes the second aspect by showing that the speed of light varies with the speed of the observer (receiver):

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/doppler
Albert Einstein Institute: "The frequency of a wave-like signal - such as sound or light - depends on the movement of the sender and of the receiver. This is known as the Doppler effect. (...) Here is an animation of the receiver moving towards the source:

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ler_static.gif (stationary receiver)

http://www.einstein-online.info/imag...ector_blue.gif (moving receiver)

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." [end of quotation]

Since "four pulses are received in the time it takes the source to emit three pulses", the speed of the pulses relative to the receiver (which has started moving towards the light source) is greater than their speed relative to the source. The second aspect is false.

Actually any correct interpretation of the Doppler effect disproves, explicitly or implicitly, the second aspect - the speed of light relative to the observer does vary with the speed of the observer, in violation of Einstein's relativity:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7O4rtlwEE
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC0Q6-xt-Xs
"Doppler effect - when an observer moves away from a stationary source. ....the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is slower than that when it is still."

http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php
"vO is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + vO. (...) The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time."

http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp...9_doppler.html
"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity vO. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: v'=v+vO. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=v'/λ=(v+vO)/λ."

Pentcho Valev
  #3  
Old May 31st 16, 08:47 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics

Clever Einsteinians resort to downright doublethink when they have to explain why Einstein stated that the speed of light was independent of the speed of the observer (perhaps the most idiotic statement in the history of science). According to John Norton, Einstein saw the reason for the stated independence in Maxwell's electromagnetic theory. On the other hand, the same John Norton teaches that Maxwell's electromagnetic theory had predicted that the speed of light did depend on the speed of the observer:

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teachi...les/index.html
John Norton: "Why Einstein should believe the light postulate is a little harder to see. We would expect that a light signal would slow down relative to us if we chase after it. The light postulate says no. No matter how fast an inertial observer is traveling in pursuit of the light signal, that observer will always find the light signal to be traveling at the same speed, c. The principal reason for Einstein's acceptance of the light postulate was his lengthy study of electrodynamics, the theory of electric and magnetic fields. The theory was the most advanced physics of the time. Some 50 years before, Maxwell had shown that light was merely a ripple propagating in an electromagnetic field. Maxwell's theory predicted that the speed of the ripple was a quite definite number: c."

http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Chasing.pdf
John Norton: "That [Maxwell's] theory allows light to slow and be frozen in the frame of reference of a sufficiently rapidly moving observer."

Einstein knew that "the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer" was an idiotic statement:

http://www.aip.org/history/exhibits/...relativity.htm
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."

Actually everybody knows that the statement "the speed of light is independent of the speed of the observer" is idiotic but physics students undergo brainwashing and then the statement becomes absolute truth for them:

http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einstein...eird_logic.htm
Joe Wolfe: "At this stage, many of my students say things like "The invariance of the speed of light among observers is impossible" or "I can't understand it". Well, it's not impossible. It's even more than possible, it is true. This is something that has been extensively measured, and many refinements to the Michelson and Morely experiment, and complementary experiments have confirmed this invariance to very great precision. As to understanding it, there isn't really much to understand. However surprising and weird it may be, it is the case. It's the law in our universe. The fact of the invariance of c doesn't take much understanding."

Pentcho Valev
  #4  
Old June 2nd 16, 10:36 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8,078
Default Einstein's False Postulate That Killed Physics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pSxaDFkZU8
Why Einstein Wanted To Unify [e.g. particles of light and waves of light]

My comment on YouTube:

Light behaves like particles in certain respects and waves in other respects but insofar as its speed is concerned, light behaves like particles - the speed of photons varies like the speed of ordinary projectiles, both in the presence and absence of a gravitational field:

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

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

http://www.amazon.com/QED-Strange-Th.../dp/0691024170
Richard Feynman, "QED: The strange theory of light and matter", p. 15: "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."

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
THE PROTECTIVE BELT OF EINSTEIN'S FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 2 September 16th 14 08:55 PM
EINSTEINIANS DO NOT NEED EINSTEIN'S FALSE SECOND POSTULATE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 0 July 4th 14 09:21 AM
WHY EINSTEIN'S LIGHT POSTULATE IS FALSE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 December 3rd 12 11:34 AM
EINSTEIN'S 1905 FALSE CONSTANT-SPEED-OF-LIGHT POSTULATE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 7 February 27th 11 08:24 AM
EINSTEIN CRIMINAL CULT GOT RID OF THE FALSE LIGHT POSTULATE Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 4 October 19th 07 03:14 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:09 AM.


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.