A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

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 Sinking Ship

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old October 18th 19, 01:19 PM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 7,492
Default Einstein's Sinking Ship

New Scientist: "Bye bye space-time: is it time to free physics from Einstein's legacy?" https://www.newscientist.com/article...steins-legacy/

Einsteinians couldn't care less. They silently leave Einstein's sinking ship and promptly become experts in quantum mechanics, AI, biology, psychology, climate science etc. The ship seems to be almost empty (only Kip Thorne is still there - his money is too heavy):


In the next version of fundamental physics the original malignancy, Einstein's 1905 nonsensical axiom

"The speed of light is invariable"

will be replaced with the correct axiom

"The wavelength of light is invariable".

I have developed the idea in a series of tweets he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev
Old October 19th 19, 07:48 AM posted to sci.astro
Pentcho Valev
external usenet poster
Posts: 7,492
Default Einstein's Sinking Ship

"Much of modern physics is founded on the principle that the speed of light is constant. Yet when Einstein proposed this in 1905, he recognised that no experiment could be performed to distinguish it from Lorentz's earlier theory, in which measuring instruments become distorted when they move through the light medium so that merely the measured speed of light is constant. Since no experiment can distinguish the two approaches, it follows that the theory of special relativity is “not even wrong”." https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physic...6ddf09a11b0628

No need to compare the two theories - the speed of light is OBVIOUSLY variable:

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.

Insofar as their speed is concerned, photons are Newtonian particles. The speed of light varies, both in the presence and in the absence of gravity, just as does the speed of ordinary projectiles.

Actually this is a well-established truth but no one cares (post-truth science):

"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

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

See more he https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

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
Einstein's Sinking Ship Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 1 August 5th 19 03:21 PM
Leaving Einstein's Sinking Ship... Too Late? Pentcho Valev Astronomy Misc 5 March 20th 17 12:55 AM
Leaving Einstein's Sinking Ship... Too Late? The Starmaker Astronomy Misc 0 March 16th 17 09:27 PM

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.